Contention, in brief, is that the backdrop of the case as reflected from the record and as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is confined to the ambit that so far as the first information report is concerned, it is totally manipulated and conspired one, it has background of the enmity. The version initially given by the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is itself dramatic and cannot be believed to be true. Obviously, there is improvement in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is matched / tallied with the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then the incident alleged to have occurred, takes u-turn and cannot be believed to be true. How can it be said that a lady who is stated to have obtained degree in B.A., is claiming that she was approached and raped by the appellant in 2008 and because of threat extended by the appellant, she did not lodge the first information report against him. There is no plausible reason as to why now she lodged the first information report after being threatened by the appellant. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 11.12.2020.
