The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are quite at variance. The allegation in the FIR is about the applicant and three others, abducting the prosecutrix. In the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is an allegation of eloping with Monu after going over to his house across the roof top. There is also an allegation of rape against Monu in that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the applicant's name has figured lateron. It is submitted, however, that a reading of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not indicate it to be a case of any kind of rape but the prosecutrix leaving home, in the first instance with Monu, and, at some other point of time, with the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. makes for a very confounded reading, but it is clear, that the prosecutrix did leave her home of her free will, once with Monu, and, at another instance with the applicant and co-accused Amit. The applicant along with Amit is said to have taken her to Haridwar and ravished her. Learned counsel submits that even if the said statement is to be believed, it is a case of consent. Learned counsel for the applicant has also invited the attention of the Court to the medico legal report, where in the statement about the occurrence, given to the doctor in confidence, the doctor has recorded what the prosecutrix has said in the following words: "according to girl she went away with a boy residing near her home to Haridwar and stayed there for three nights and left her at Modi Nagar" This again, the learned counsel submits, shows
