7.4.2015 at 7.45 p.m. and that the copy of the complaint Ex.P1, printed First Information Report, Ex.P15 and the alteration report Ex.P18, had reached the Court on the next day i.e. 8.4.2015 after the arrest of the accused and thereby creating a grave doubt in the case of the Prosecution. He would further submit that as per the evidence of PW.1, the accused is said to have known to her, being the friend of her brother and if that is so, she would have clearly mentioned about the name of the accused to her sister and brother in law, whom she had met after the incident, whereas it is the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 that when PW.1 met her, she had told her that she did not know the accused and that according to PW.1, the accused was not known and that according to PW.5, father of the victim, she had initially told that she was assaulted by one Gopi and thereafter, the name of the Appellant/Accused was stated by him and hence, it is a case of mistaken identity and that though there is a presumption against the Appellant, the Prosecution is bound to prove the foundational facts and that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the Appellant is the person, who had involved in the crime and in such circumstances, the Appellant/Accused is liable to be acquitted.
