her mind. She remained in the company of the appellant for sufficient duration in the house of his brother-in-law. Nothing has emerged on record to infer as to whether the said house was locked that time or somebody was residing therein. The Investigating Officer did not examine any witness from the said house to ascertain as to who else was present inside the house at the time of occurrence. It is also not explained if none else was residing in the said accommodation, how the appellant managed to open its lock. The Investigating Officer did not examine the appellant’s brother-in-law to find out as to how the appellant had access to the said house during that night. Even during her presence at the said house, the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm. She came silently to her house after the crime and on the way did not raise any voice. She maintained complete silence. When she was confronted by her father, she did not present true facts and mislead him telling that it was due to a ‘quarrel’. The victim’s father immediately informed the police who arrived at the spot. The matter was pacified and no complaint whatsoever was lodged against the appellant for commission of rape. Apparently, the prosecutrix being a party to the coitus did not come forward to allege commission of rape upon her. Only in the evening, seemingly she was prevailed upon by her parents and the FIR under Section 376 IPC was lodged against the appellant.
