It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that for the last alleged incident dated 1st April, 2018, the first information report has been lodged on 24th August, 2018 by Smt. Neeraj i.e. prosecutrix herself against her husband, father-in-law, mother-inlaw, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and Jeth, i.e. four months and 24 days from the date of the last alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been given, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. In the first information report, it has been alleged that the marriage of the prosecutrix has been solemnized with Ved Prakash (applicant) after giving dowry in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. After some time, the accused persons started harassing and beating the prosecutrix for additional dowry, thereafter on 23rd January, 2018, when the husband of the prosecutrix i.e. applicant went to attend the marriage ceremony at night, the co-accused Gangaram entered into her room forcefully and sexually assaulted her and when she shouted, the co-accused threatened that nobody would save her. Thereafter she had been regularly harassed by the accused persons. On 24th February, 2018, the applicant has dropped the victim at her parental place and after leaving her he went from there. On 1st April, 2018, all the accused persons came to the parental place of prosecutrix and told that unless or until the additional demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lacs has not been given to them, they would not take her to her in-laws' place and they went from there without taking the victim along with them. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that initially the first information report has been lodged under Sections 498-A, 376, 377, 313, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P.Act against the all the accused persons including the applicant but after completing the statutory investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the statement, the prosecutrix has improved her version by stating that for additional demand of dowry, all the accused persons were harassing and
