pointed out that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., also the prosecutrix has said that she is in love with the applicant for the past one year but on the date of occurrence, she went with the applicant to a hotel in Vikas Nagar, where he ravished her and, thereafter, let her off at a Gurudwara where from she called her brother, who came and picked her up. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., on a slightly different note while maintaining the basic case of a relationship, the prosecutrix has indicated that the applicant took her away by blandishment to Ponta Sahib, but did not marry her. It is submitted that the mention of marriage clearly speaks about the relationship between parties that is elsewhere said explicitly (in the statement to the doctor). It is also said that the two stayed at Vikas Nagar in a hotel, though it is alleged that the applicant ravished her. There is an added allegation against his brother, elsewhere. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the inculpatory strains that have crept in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., are at the instance of the prosecutrix's family, but in the statement of the prosecutrix before the Doctor relationship between parties finds clear expression in exculpatory words, which is a statement recorded away from social and familial pressure. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under the circumstances, no case justifying the detention of the applicant is made out. .
