Having heard the leaned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that even though statements of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC, before the Doctor and section 164 CrPC are not consistent but to the contrary inconsistent and contradictory, the medical evidence categorically does not go to sow that sexual assault was committed upon the prosecutrix but the Court finds that in her statement before the Doctor and under Section 164 CrPC has categorically and specifically stated that applicant maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix though it was consensual. In view of above coupled with the fact that marital status of the applicant is that of a married man and the judgements of the Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar (supra) and X (Minor) (supra) , the consent of the prosecutirx, if any, is wholly immaterial.
