Chandigarh. It is said that from Chandigarh, the two went to Kambaddhi, Himachal Pradesh, where the applicant is said to have rented a room and housed the prosecutrix there. It is there that the applicant ravished her. It is also said that she resisted the applicant saying that the applicant should first marry her. The applicant threatened her with death and also threatened to do her family to death. It is stated that the prosecutrix stayed at Himachal Pradesh upto 27.07.2018 and all this while the applicant ravished her. It is also said that when she again mentioned marriage, he said that they would go back to collect funds and go to the Allahabad Court to marry. The two travelled from Chandigarh by train to Chandausi and then to their village and while waiting for the bus were arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which also carries precisely the same story. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the prosecutrix's account where she proceed through busy public places, without calling rescue, stayed with the applicant in a rented room, moved from one station to another without there being any such realistic and patent threat that would keep her so submissive as to subject herself to rape, clearly shows it to be a case of consent and a relationship. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the medico legal report which shows no injury external or internal, the report being one dated 30.7.2018, that is part of the case diary produced before the Court during hearing by the learned AGA. It is submitted that the complete absence of any injury, internal or external, is not compatible with a case of rape.
