2 Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant would submit that P.W.4 is the victim and she is a married woman and at the time of the alleged occurrence on 05.02.2014, she was aged about 37 years and drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of P.W.4 and would submit that P.W.4 has given inconsistent answer by saying that the petitioner/appellant married her and thereafter, had physical relationship and later on, denied the said fact and even from the testimony of P.W.3, who initially treated the victim, nothing has been elicited that she was physically assaulted by the petitioner/appellant forcefully and the testimony of P.W.9 who subsequently treated the victim, would also disclose that in the chemical analysis report, there was no indication as to the fact of having physical relationship and in the light of the said facts and circumstances, the Trial Court, ought to have awarded benefit of doubt and would further add that even assuming that the petitioner/appellant had committed the said crime, the sentence of imprisonment for life is highly disproportionate and since the chance of success is very bright, prays for suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment.
