(PW.4), Kumbha Ram (PW.5). Further, witness Deepa Ram (PW10) has also been declared hostile. Counsel submits that during cross-examination, prosecutrix mentioned that for about 2-3 hours, the appellant kept his hand on her mouth and committed rape with her, which is implausible. Counsel further submits that according to the FIR, there is over-writing on the name of accused-appellant, thus, the identity of the accused-appellant has not been known and the accused-appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. The statement of Dr. Bhanwar Lal has been recorded as (PW.6) before the trial court and in his statement, he mentioned that no injury was found on the body (including private parts) of the prosecutrix and also no fresh discharge was found on her body. According to statement of Anup Singh (PW.9), he deposited the samples before the FSL, Jaipur and during crossexamination, he admitted that no seal was put on the articles, thus, the samples were not in an intact position, till they reached for FSL. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same lacks, amongst other, appreciation of the evidence available on record, for the purpose of charging and convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC in particular.
