counsel for the applicant has further invited the attention of the Court to the statement made by the prosecutrix in confidence to the doctor during her medico legal examination that finds place at page 22 of the paper book, where she has said that on 14.8.2018 at 12.00 noon, she went away with the applicant, boarding a bus to Etawah and thence by train to Delhi. She has stated that the applicant had promised to marry her and further that he had threatened to do her father and brother to death. It is also stated that on 28.8.2018, the applicant dropped back the prosecutrix to Auraiya. It is specifically said that whatever the applicant did to the prosecutrix she does not remember, but she has further said that he did not marry her. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case in the FIR, in the statement under Section 161, 164 Cr.P.C., and, that made to the doctor are all inconsistent, wavering and undependable. It is further pointed out that a perusal of the injury report does not show either any external injury or internal injury sustained by the prosecutrix, which all the more excludes a case of rape. It is pointed out that so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned she has been opined by the doctor, in the supplementary medico legal report at page 36 of the paper book, based on an ossification test, to be aged about 18 years. Learned counsel submits that the prosecutrix is, therefore, clearly a major, and the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. He submits that in the face of all this exculpatory evidence and undependable prosecution, the prosecution have no feet to stand.
