passengers, who were already there. The prosecutrix wanted to get down, but the applicant is said to have threatened her. It is said that the applicant made her get down at Rampur where there was a man waiting with a motorcycle that was employed to take her to a village, where the applicant housed the prosecutrix. She stayed there for thirteen days. It is said in the statement that she did not call rescue on the way, or while she was in the house, as she was threatened by the applicant that she would be done to death. She was not confined in any manner, or placed under guard of any kind. It is alleged in the said statement that during her stay of thirteen days, the applicant forcibly ravished her thrice. It is said at the tail end of the statement that after fifteen days, the applicant dropped the prosecutrix at the Karchana police station, telling her not to reveal matters to anyone. It is emphasized that she was dropped at the police station. Learned counsel for the applicant has strongly contended that the prosecutrix's account, which is almost an echo of what she has said in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., does not prima facie inspire confidence, and clearly shows it to be a case of a relationship between parties, where the prosecutrix stayed with the applicant in a village for thirteen days, without calling rescue. She also did not call for any help, while on way where there were three other passengers on board the Auto-rickshaw. It is also pointed out that it appears to be patently illogical that an accused would drop a victim at the police station, a fact emphatically mentioned in both statements, under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the
