The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. He submits that without prejudice to the plea that there is absolutely no involvement of the applicant, and, there is no truth to the allegations of the prosecutrix, even if, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is to be believed it shows according to the learned counsel for the applicant, that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Learned counsel pointed out that in the statement, prosecutrix has said that first time, the applicant ravished her was two months ago. He ravished her in her home, in the verandah adjacent to a room. It is said in the statement, that the applicant took away the prosecutrix 4-5 times in the night hours into the fields on his motor-cycle, about which her parents did not come to know. It is said that he would come to the applicant's home on his motor cycle at 10 in the night, and, take her away and drop her back in the morning at 4, in the morning. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of the prosecutrix does not indicate that she was put under fear or threat by the applicant, and, the episodes continued over a long time which shows that she was a consenting party for the worst, and, without prejudice, to the applicant's case. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the medico legal report, which is based on a radiological analysis. The prosecutrix has been estimated to be 18 years old, and, therefore, prima facie, a major. It is submitted that, therefore, if at all, she had consensual relations that does not bring the case within the teeth of POCSO Act or any other offence.
