The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, to contend that the entire evidence is unreliable. Now let us look at the facts. The age of the victim girl is stated to be 19 years. The evidence of her, as P.W.1, that she came to the Railway station as she did not want to go to her husband’s house is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, who is her brother. From the above behavior of P.W.1, who is aged 19 years, it can be understood that she did not develop maturity, to the level, sufficient enough to take care of herself and to face the situations with which she is confronted in life. It also appears that she was in a helpless state. A girl, aged 19 years, sitting at a Railway station, without any direction as to how she should go about in her life, can be expected to be in state of confusion and vulnerability. There arises, no doubt, with regard to what she stated. But, however, a benefit of doubt was extended to the accused, by virtue of the fact that she did not raise any cries, while she was being taken on the motorcycle by the accused and thereafter. Whether the said approach of the learned trial Court was right or wrong is not for this Court to decide in the instant appeal. But it would suffice to say that the truth in part of the version of P.W.1 had to be upheld by the learned trial Court, in spite of it seeing an element of consent on the part of the P.W.1, as there was sufficient corroboration for that part of her evidence, which the learned trial Court believed.
