From her such deposition also, it is equally clear that the incident of commission of rape was not under any threat and from the facts and the circumstances, it cannot be deduced that the appellant put the prosecutrix either under any fear and committed the alleged sexual intercourse against her wish. As per the prosecution case and as per the deposition of the prosecutrix PW3, on her return back home, she had narrated the incident to her mother and on that, her mother had gone to the house of her Nani, when Nani assured to get the appellant married to the prosecutrix and on the assurance so given, they had returned back home. During cross, PW2-the mother of the prosecutrix has deposed that it was on the next date of the incident, they went to the house of the mother of the appellant, who happened to be her aunt and she stated for arranging the marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix and on that, they came back, and, after two days thereof, they again went to their house and ultimately after 2-3 days of the mother of the appellant telling that they could do whatever they want, they have gone to the police and lodged the FIR. During her cross, she has also deposed that the house of the appellant was situated in the street behind their house. As per her such deposition, even such promise of marriage after the incident, stood broken within a week or so of the incident, though, as per the complaint and the FIR, the promise or assurance of marriage was given by Nani and not the mother of the appellant. FIR however came to be lodged more than a month of the incident. Delay in lodging the FIR thus remains unexplained.
