The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is named in the FIR along with co-accused Jittan of ravishing the prosecutrix. It is submitted that by contrast in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police, she has said that she was ravished by two boys, whose names she did not know. It is also pointed out that this statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was promptly recorded by the police, the day the FIR was registered. Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court to a question put to the prosecutrix by the police as to how she has nominated the applicant and the co-accused when she did not know the identity of the assailants. To this question, the prosecutrix answered by saying that she could recognize them, once confronted. Learned counsel for the applicant has also laid emphasis on the statement of the prosecutrix made to the Doctor in confidence during her medico-legal examination on 11.10.2018, where the Doctor has recorded the short description of the incident in the following words "6/10/2018, 3 PM, near to her Jhopdi, 2 episode by 2 persons. Name of assailant not known to her." It is emphasized that in the statement to the Doctor also, the name of the assailants has been indicated to be not known to her. Learned counsel has submitted that again in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant and co-accused have been nominated with a graphic account of the occurrence, where it is also said that co-accused Jittan proposed to marry her, and on her declination, ravished her in first instance, followed by Rahul (applicant). The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant further is that a perusal of the medico-legal report does not show any injury whatsoever, external or internal, which makes it entirely incompatible with a case of gang rape by two men.
