to go out, she switched on the light of her room and identified him that it was the Appellant. As per the prosecution story, other doors of the house were closed and the Appellant had entered the room of the prosecutrix through the door of the kitchen which was open. Three more persons, i.e., two sisters-in-law and one brother-in-law were present in the house. In this situation, knowing this fact, the Appellant would have entered the room of the prosecutrix does not appear to be natural. As per the statement of the prosecutrix, when the Appellant was committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, she had come to know that he was not her husband. But, even after coming to know this fact, she did not raise any alarm nor did she shout for any help at that point of time. She has also stated that prior to this, while her sleeping, when her hand was caught by someone, at that time, she, thinking that the said person would be her husband, had called her sister-in-law. But, her sister-in-law Rukmani (PW4) has not stated anything in this regard. As per the statement of the prosecutrix, after switching on the light of her room, she had identified the said person to be the Appellant. From her statement, it is clear that after commission of the sexual intercourse with her, she first wiped out her private part with her petticoat and thereafter she switched on the light of her room. When she came to know while commission of sexual intercourse with her that the person committing sexual intercourse was not her husband and forcible sexual intercourse was being committed with her by the said stranger then she would have first switched on the light of her room and shouted for help, but she did not do so.
