heard on behalf of the Respondent -State. It is submitted by Mr. Jaltare that the incident had not occurred at all, as alleged by the PW 6. It is brought to my notice that there are major omissions in the earlier statement of PW 1 recorded by the Police. It is contended that the omissions are of material nature and are indication of the fact that the PW 6 has improved her version during the course of trial. I have gone through the omissions found in the earlier statement of PW 6. Those omissions have been proved by the Investigating Officer. If all the omissions are read together, it will indicate that PW 6/victim had not stated before the police that she was forcibly made to lie down on the cot or the floor and that violence was used against her by the applicant. Though there are no omissions with regard to the actual sexual intercourse, but the rest of the portion of the incident is omitted to have been stated before the police for which there is no explanation. The Officer who had recorded the statement of PW 6 at the Police Station, has been examined as PW 4. It is stated by this witness that PW 6-victim Sangita had not stated before him that the appellant/applicant had beaten her and that he had threatened that her brother and mother would be killed. PW 6 had also not stated before PW 4 that her hands were tied by means of odhani . PW 6 had not stated before PW 4 that she had narrated the incident to her mother when her mother had returned home. Similarly,
