applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Attention of the court was then invited to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Drawing a parallel between the two statements, the learned counsel for applicant submits that prosecutrix is not clear, categorical and consistent in her statements. In her subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. a departure was made from her previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He therefore submits that the prosecutrix has not been clear and consistent in her statements referred to above. On the above premise, it is thus urged by learned counsel for applicant that the statements of prosecutrix, referred to above suffers from the vice of embellishment and contradiction , which remains unexplained. Referring to the judgement of apex Court in Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 2 SCC 74 he submits that conviction of an accused for an offence of rape or sexual assault can be maintained even in absence of medical evidence and on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. However, in such a circumstance, the statement of the prosecutrix must be clear, categorical, consistent and unambiguous. When the aforesaid test is applied to the statements of prosecutrix, referred to above, it cannot be said that the statements of prosecutrix when examined as a whole, fall in the category of impeccable evidence. The prosecutrix is a willing and consenting parry. The prosecutrix was aged about 17 years 6 months and 29 days on the date of occurrence. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
