of the prosecutrix recorded by the lady constable during investigation earliest in point of time after her recovery and registration of the case, it is said by her that on 13.07.2017 at about 3.00 o'clock, she had gone to answer the call of nature when the applicant took her away by blandishment on the false pretext of marrying her to Bhapatpur. It is said there that he made her wear bridal attire and got a photo shoot done of the two together. He then took her to an advocate at the Tehsil in whose presence he made her put her thumb mark to some paper. It is said that thereafter he had sex with her forcibly. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in a materially discrepant but inculpatory version of the occurrence, the prosecutrix in her statement to the doctor made in confidence during her medico legal examination has said that when she had gone to answer the call of nature the applicant caught her. He took her to Bhavai, there he had sexual intercourse, whereafter her brother brought her back. It is pointed out by learned counsel that in sharp contrast to these outrightly inculpatory statements, before the Magistrate the prosecutrix has said that the applicant is the son of her aunt (Bua) and, therefore, she knows her. It is said that on the date of occurrence on 13.06.2017 in the afternoon hours at 3.00 p.m. the applicant tied a talisman to some part of her body, and, thereafter, she would do as he bade her. It is further stated that the applicant took her to Bhapatpur. She stayed there with the applicant for a period of four days. It is said that when the police reached there she came back. At the tail end of the statement, it is categorically said that the applicant did not do any wrong to her, described in the words in vernacular as "Chhotelal Ne Mere Sath Koi Galat Kam Nahi Kiya". Learned counsel strenuously urges that the statement read as a whole, in particularly, the last line thereof, makes it clear that the
