It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. The prosecutrix went with the appellant on her own free will. She was major at the time of alleged incident. Her date of birth has not been proved by reliable evidence by the prosecution. Prosecutrix has been examined as P.W.2. Her statement does not inspire confidence as it suffers from material contradictions and infirmities. She has stated in her crossexamination that she travelled with the appellant by train and by other public transport and there were many people at the railway station and during her train journey but despite having opportunity to raise alarm or protest or to make complaint to any person, no such act was done. Further she has admitted that she did not make any complaint to any person during her stay in hotel and in the house, where two people were there. She has further admitted that the appellant used to go out for job and she was left alone at house but even during that period, she did not try to escape from the place where she was residing. She has also admitted that they purchased clothes from market and no such complaint was made to any person, though there were several persons in the market. The prosecutrix was recovered from Bhilwara on 26.02.2019/27.02.2019. Witnesses have stated that the appellant was also arrested from the very same place and on the same date, but Ex.P.13 reveals that the arrest of appellant was made on 05.03.2019. Prosecutrix in her court statement
