accused fled away from the spot. In cross-examination, she admitted that there are many houses near the incident place. She stated in her cross-examination that when accused caught hold her hand in the courtyard of his house, she raised cries but accused forcibly dragged her inside the room whereas in Ex.D.1, which is the diary statement, the aforesaid evidence adduced by her in the cross-examination, is not stated by her meaning thereby that this witness disclosed those facts for the first time in Court. Therefore, her evidence adduced in Court is not reliable. She also stated that when she was protesting herself, her neck was injured by bangles but medical report shows that she has given false statement because no broken pieces of bangles were seized by the Police. She further stated that accused was threatened her that he will press her neck whereas this fact did not find anywhere in the Police Report (Ex.P.1) nor did find place in the Police statement (Ex.D.1). If the above evidence is taken into consideration, then it reveals that she adduced false evidence before the Court. She has also narrated that when accused was doing sexual intercourse, then her hands were free but she did not try to protect herself nor did try to counter attack on accused, which shows the conduct of the prosecutrix that she was not aggrieved party but totally consenting party. As the testimony of the prosecutrix itself was not reliable and the same is also not supported by the medical evidence, it cannot be said that this is a case forcible intercourse on her.
