The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix after the prosecutrix shared all information about the crime, the allegation that figures is one exclusively against one Mohan Swaroop, co-accused speaking about gaining acquaintance with the applicant, and, then by blandishment taking her away. It is said there that Mohan Swaroop ravished her. There is no allegation in the FIR against the applicant, not even a mention of his name. It is further submitted that in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is an allegation of rape again against Mohan Swaroop alone, where too, the applicant is not at all mentioned. It is pointed out that in the statement recorded before the doctor, in confidence, thumb marked by the prosecutrix, during her medico legal examination, it has figured that co-accused Mohan Swaroop deceived the prosecutrix into a relationship, on the pretext of marrying her, and became physically intimate. It is said there that on 28.07.2018, on a false promise to marry, Mohan Swaroop took the prosecutrix to his farmhouse and ravished her. In the said statement also, there is no mention of applicant's role. It is submitted that it is in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that a generically different case of gang rape, involving the applicant, besides three others, has been introduced by the prosecutrix, which is completely incompatible with her version of the occurrence elsewhere, including her statement made to the doctor that she has duly signed/thumb marked. It is also completely different from what is said in the FIR, and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution case has, therefore, undergone a generic change
