submitted that from registration of report on 20.01.2020 and till recovery of prosecutrix, complainant had changed its version. He further referred the statements of PW-1 (Prosecutrix) and other witnesses so as to submit that these witnesses had continuously made improvements regarding the incident and its places of incident along with mode of transport which clearly indicated that the incident as claimed by prosecution was highly improbable. He further referred the statement of PW-2 so as to submit that the school record of prosecutrix was not proved from the evidence recorded by learned trial court. While referring medical and DNA reports, further submitted that there was no medical evidence to conclude that incident of rape was proved. At last, he submitted that appellant remained in custody for a long duration and no cogent evidence was led by prosecution so as to establish the charge, therefore the order of conviction recorded by learned trial court is thoroughly erroneous and unsustainable in eye of law. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in cases of Shyam Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Death Reference No.1 and Criminal Appeal No. 1310/2000), Mulayam Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Misc. Criminal Case No. 9189/2016) , judgment of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Utpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Assam (Criminal Appeal Nos. 66 and 140 of 2007), Nayan Jyoti Vs. State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2008) . He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Munna Vs. State of MP (2014) 10 SCC 254 wherein it was laid down that circumstances should have been taken as a
