The contentions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the FIR was got registered by son of the victim after two days of the incident under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)5, 3(2)5A, 3(1)5, 3(1)D SC/ST Act naming the applicant, Rakesh Yadav and Renu with the allegation that on 19.10.2017 around 12:00 in the noon, all the aforesaid named accused persons has committed rape upon the victim(70). The Juvenile Justice Board has determined the age of the revisionist as 16 years and 3 months on the date of incident. There is material discrepancies in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim has candidly stated that on tutoring of her son, she has taken the names of the accused persons. The police after holding the investigation, has dropped the name of two accused persons but included the applicant in the charge sheet. The Medical Report has negated the allegation of Section 326 IPC. The allegations levelled in the FIR is not corroborated by the medical evidence since the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is being made after tutoring of her son, which is not trustworthy. Besides above, it sounds very unsual and mind boggling, while levelling a bizarre allegation of rape by young lad of 16 years on a old lady of 70 years. The D.P.R.O. Report shows that there is nothing adverse against the revisionist. His father is working in Dubai and due to animosity, his name has been dragged.
