witnesses and conclusion drawn by learned trial court to submit that roof from which accused fled away after the incident was at a height of 25 ft. from ground level and without using stairs it was impossible to reach at top and thereafter jumping from aforesaid roof is again quite difficult. He further submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicated that there was animosity between the parties and due to which present appellant was framed. He further submitted from school record (Ex.P-11 and 12) it is clear that year of birth of victim was changed from 2001 to 2005 so as to show her age below 16 years. He further referred the representations and statement of witnesses in favour of accused but also submitted that due to non-deposit of Rs.18,000/- by father of victim/prosecutrix, this false case was registered. He further referred the cross-examination of witnesses including victim and IO to submit that there were material contradictions and discrepancies which were overlooked by trial court. He submitted that learned trial court without any reason came to conclusion that victim was less than 16 years of age when rape was committed with her. He further submitted that the documents relating to age were fabricated and learned trial court without noticing the same had concluded against the accused. He further referred the statements of defence witnesses to submit that appellant is innocent person and just to avoid responsibility of depositing Rs.18,000/-, father of prosecutrix registered this case. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time, so he be released on bail.
