she resided in a thickly populated area and if anyone raises alarm, it can be easily heard. Thus, it is highly improbable that despite her shouting to save nobody came to her rescue. Further, despite identifying the car and its driver, she stated that she cannot give the number of the car as she was illiterate. During her cross-examination, she could not state whether Sharwan or someone else was driving the car. As per the MLC of the prosecutrix, her version of forcefully taking her and committing rape upon her is not fortified as there was no external injury. Lastly, it is contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to dispute over the jhuggi. Placing reliance on the decision reported as (2012) 7 SCC 171 Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), it is submitted that it is not the duty of the defence to explain how and why the accused has been falsely implicated, rather the prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the defence. Statement of the prosecutrix has to be read with the other evidence in totality and when the story projected by the prosecutrix is highly improbable, it should not be believed. Referring to the decision reported as (2010) 4 SCC 115 Jai Krishna Mandal V. State of Jharkhand wherein the appellant was falsely implicated due to deep enmity between the family of the prosecutrix and appellants and there was ample opportunity for the prosecutrix to raise hue and cry but she did not attempt to do so and there was no injury on the prosecutrix, learned counsel contends that the appellant be acquitted.
