11. Learned counsel for the appellant has points out that in the FIR informant first states that the informant was going to take bath after opening her blouse due to summer season. At that time, Barnabas Kisku, the appellant, entered into her house and closed the main door and caught hold of her with bad intention and started to open her saree and threw her on the paddy pile and attempted to rape her. But in her deposition at para-1, informant states that it was time of summer, she had opened her blouse and she was winnowing the rice and Barna came and caught hold of her and she thought that it was her husband, she asked why he was holding her and she received no answer. Then she asked Barna why has he come to her house? Then she raised alarm, but she was taken inside. Accused was closing the door with one hand and he kept on holding her with other hand. Then she came out through another door. So, the learned counsel submitted that from the deposition of the victim, it does not appear that the appellant had attempted to rape the informant. There is total contradiction in the statements made in the FIR and the statements made in the deposition.
