given by the victim-prosecutrix in the case at hand is read in its entirety, it is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Trial Court, while ascertaining the guilt of an accused in such like cases, is expected to test the veracity of the statement of victim-prosecutrix, taking note of other evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Interestingly, in the case at hand, as per statements of the victim-prosecutrix recorded under S.154 Cr.P.C, on the basis of which FIR was registered and under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded by learned Magistrate, accused was already in the cowshed and when at around 6.00 pm, victim-prosecutrix entered the cowshed, he wielded a knife, gagged her mouth and committed forcible sexual assault upon her, however, while deposing before the learned trial Court, she nowhere stated anything with regard to accused wielding knife to her. Similarly, in FIR victim-prosecutrix deposed that she remained in cowshed for almost one hour, but there is nothing to suggest that during aforesaid period of one hour, she ever attempted to raise alarm, rather she simply stated that after one hour, she went outside the cowshed and bolted the same from outside and narrated the entire story to her mother-in-law Smt. Ganga Devi. If the aforesaid version put-forth by the victim-prosecutrix is perused juxtaposing her statement given before the trial Court, it casts serious doubt about the correctness of story put-forth by the
