True it is that it is not a thumb rule that in order to lay credence to the evidence of the prosecutrix, it should necessarily be supported from any medical evidence. However, in the present case, the prosecutrix is a major lady and she had a prohibitory relationship with the respondent / accused who happened to be her brother-in-law. Her natural conduct would have been to offer resistance and cry for help. In her evidence, she has stated that as the respondent, on a threat to kill, committed rape and even after that, he stated that if she discloses the event, she would be killed along with her husband. However, this fact has not been stated in the FIR that rape was committed by extending any threat of life by the prosecutrix and her husband. In the FIR, there is no statement regarding any threat given to the prosecutrix. Unless there is clear evidence of threat and that too of such a nature and extent, in such circumstances that one could reasonably presume that it was not possible for anyone to offer any resistance that the allegation of rape could find support. In the present case, the alleged act is said to have taken place in the cattle shed attached to the house, where there are number of residents. The prosecutrix was not a minor girl which could be easily overpowered by any simple threat. Therefore, these circumstances also raise a doubt as to why the prosecutrix did not offer any resistance or atleast cry for help from the members who were present in the house. In this background, absence of injury on any part of the body assumes importance and create doubt on the case of the prosecution. Independently, the contents of FIR show that the respondent and the prosecutrix were coming out of cattle shed after sexual act, they were seen by Sushila – wife of the respondent / accused and also by the prosecutrix's own daughter. Learned Trial Court has taken a view based on this circumstance that as the affair of the prosecutrix and the
