Admittedly, no torn blouse has been given by the first informant to the investigating officer. In the enquiry report, on the basis of a joint application moved by the hundreds of villagers, the first informant was not found entitled for the house in Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana then at the behest of the opposite parties of the village pradhan this application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the first informant. Vivek Kumar, the son of the first informant also denied of any such incident with her mother. The impugned order has been specifically passed on the basis of the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the husband of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If all the three statements are read together, there is vast contradiction amongst these three statements. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim, there is no allegation of attempt of rape, tearing the clothes and uttering caste based words. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is an improvement with the allegation of tearing her blouse, making an attempt of rape and thrashing her, while the husband of the first informant also in his statement has not mentioned any of the incident of tearing cloths/ blouse of the alleged victim making any attempt of rape and thrashing her. The husband of the alleged victim has only made an allegation that his wife was molested at the hands of the appellants and on his exhortation both the appellants made good their escape. Thus, the statements of the first informant/ victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the husband of the alleged victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. are highly contradictory, which cannot be relied upon. The trial court has misread the statements of the alleged victim and her husband and
