that day, when she was sleeping in her house and her daughter had gone outside to purchase eatables, the accused who was known to her before the incident entered inside the house. The accused bolted the door from inside and when she enquired about it, he asked her to keep quiet and pressed her mouth with his hand. Thereafter, he directed her to take off her clothes. When she resisted unsuccessfully, he tore her clothes and put his male organ in her mouth and committed carnal intercourse. Thereafter, she was raped by the appellant. She identified clothes Ex.P-1 (salwar), Ex.P-2 (kameej) and Ex.P-3 (underwear) which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. Clothes Ex.P-4 (T-shirt), Ex.P-5 (trouser) and Ex.P-6 (underwear) were also identified by her which the appellant was wearing at the time of incident. She was cross-examined at great length on various dates. All sorts of questions, relevant or irrelevant, were asked from her. She specifically denied if physical relations with the appellant were with her free consent. She answered all the queries of the appellant intelligently and no material discrepancies or infirmities could be extracted in her lengthy cross-examination. No ulterior motive was assigned to the prosecutrix to level serious allegations of rape against the appellant with whom she had familiarity long before. No sound reasons exist to
