between the parties. The sister of the appellant was molested and she was raped by the brother of the informant. Thus, it is alleged that by way of revenge, this appellant has tried to commit rape and outrage the modesty of the informant. The informant has admitted that his cousin, who had committed rape upon the sister of the appellant, has been convicted. Thus, the element of animosity between the parties has strengthened. Further it is the case of the prosecution that the blouse of the informant was torn by this appellant while she was being molested and was tried to be raped, and when she raised alarm, the other witnesses came. The Officer-in-Charge clearly stated that none of the witnesses have stated before him that they had seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence and the blouse of the appellant was torn. The depositions of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, who have stated before the Court, are not the correct version. Thus the statement before the court and the statement recorded under Section 161 differs. Thus the circumstances which go against the prosecution. Further as observed earlier, the element of false implication of this appellant cannot be ruled out because the cousin of the informant was convicted for committing rape upon the sister of the appellant and it is an admitted fact that during the pendency of that case, the instant case has been lodged.
