work. Admittedly, they had stayed at the house of P.W.4 – Dhrupadabai. Close reading of the evidence indicates that there was no relationship between the victim and Dhrupadabai. Dhrupadabai was said to be her foster maternal aunt. Admittedly, on the given night (16th September, 2016), the trio i.e. the appellant, the victim and her mother were asleep on the otla in front of the house of Dhrupadabai. There were public lamp posts at and around the area of crime scene. The crime scene panchanama (Exh.13) and further evidence on record indicate that it was a populated area. There were many houses adjoining and around the crime scene. True, it was raining. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant completely undressed the victim. He too undressed himself. He then committed sexual intercourse with her twice. There is no evidence to indicate the victim to have raised alarm. As per the case of prosecution, the act was witnessed by P.W.12 – Gayabai, mother of the victim. She, therefore, asked the appellant not to commit such act. P.W.4 – Dhrupadabai also claimed to have witnessed the said incident. All these facts indicate that if at all such act did take place and noticed by neighbours, there was no difficulty for the victim and her mother to approach the police station on the very next day. The appellant gave threats to the victim’s mother appears to be a reason put forth afterthought so as to explain the delay of four days in registration of the crime. Since the victim was medically screened 4/5 days after the incident, the C.A. reports (Exh.132) in relation to the clothes on the person of both, the appellant and the victim, do
