Vicky before the incident then how he was named in the FIR and the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. remains unexplained. Further, in her cross examination, she has stated that Vicky used to live near the place where the victim was earlier residing, it means that her statement u/s 164 CrP.C. that she did not know Vicky before the incident is incorrect. Further, in her statement given in the court, she stated that Vicky tried to insert his "pishab ki jagah in her pishab jagah” but he could not do so. She changed the nature of alleged incident altogether. Further in the examination in chief, she has stated that on 24.03.2014 at about 2:00/2.30a.m. Her friend Laxmi took her to a friend's house but subsequently in her examination in chief itself, she stated that she went with Laxmi at about 6.00p.m. and by mistake she stated that Laxmi took her around 2.30a.m. It is relevant to note that in the original FIR she has mentioned that Laxmi took her at around 2.30p.m. There are much variation in the time when allegedly Laxmi took her to the house of her friend. It is also important to note that the mother of victim PW-6 in her deposition has stated that when she went to inquire about her daughter at Laxmi's house, her mother told that Laxmi is at home. If Laxmi was at her home on 24.03.2014 at late night hours then how Laxmi took away victim with her is unexplained. Further, the MLC of the victim does not show any sign of sexual assault. Her hymen was found intact with no sign of recent injury and no vaginal discharge and it rules out possibility of sexual assault. Further, the FSL result also did
