statements of the key witnesses of fact, the informant, prosecutrix and her father are already examined by Trial Court but prosecutrix has not supported F.I.R. version and her statements recorded in Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in her statement before the Court and she was declared hostile by prosecution. However, in crossexamination, she has stated that she had deposed against accused in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at behest of co-villagers, she denied suggestion of prosecution that some settlement has occurred between her and the accused. When she passed through the house of the accused on the date of incident, she cried for help due to some misconception, the accused had done nothing with her, misconception was harboured by her regarding some shadow of ghost. P.W.1, the informant who is brother of the appellant has stated in cross-examination that this incident did not take place before him, the accused had not done anything against her sister in his view and he cannot say that who had filed a written report. His sister has studied up to Class 10th. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim has stated her age as 16 years in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but in her examination-in-chief, she as stated her age as 20 years. In medical legal examination, no external or internal injury was found on her person. He lastly submitted that appellant is languishing in jail 13.09.2020.The learned court below has rejected the bail application of the appellant on insufficient grounds. The case of the appellant for the purpose of bail was not duly considered by learned court below.
