Wed. Apr 21st, 2021

Rahul vs State on 1 June, 2017

1 min read

2. Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Azhar
Qayum contends that there are material contradictions in the testimony of
prosecutrix as deposed by her in Court and her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she does not

CRL.A. 500/2014 Page 1 of 9
state that she had earned around ₹300/- by selling rags. Further even from
the evidence of prosecutrix it is evident that she had been roaming around
the area with the appellant for quite some time and the act was thus
consensual in nature as was also the defence taken by the appellant in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He further states that from the conjoint
reading of the deposition of the prosecutrix and the statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. it is evident that she was not lost on the way, she knew the
appellant from before and was thus comfortable in his company.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply