Evidence of the prosecutrix/PW1 shows that she, along with her parents and sisters, was residing in one part of the house, whereas the other part of the house was occupied by her uncle and aunt PW2 Narmada. Thus, what has been stated by the prosecutrix/PW1 in her chief-examination regarding arrival of PW2 Narmada on the scene of occurrence is cemented from this material brought on record by the defence during crossexamination of the prosecutrix/PW1. Similarly, in crossexamination of the prosecutrix/PW1, the defence attempted to put forth a theory of false implication by stating that there is dispute between two villagers on account of indulgence in black magic, as well as the fact that the appellant/accused is falsely implicated, as the prosecutrix/PW1 was willing to marry him, her father was also liking the appellant/accused, but the appellant/accused refused to marry the prosecutrix/PW1. The prosecutrix/PW1 has denied all such suggestions. It is hard to believe that a minor female would indulge in lodging a false report in respect of rape on her, only because of her willingness to marry the appellant/accused and refusal by the appellant/accused to marry. Such type of offence
