2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there are glaring contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix. She
stated that when the appellant was trying to rape her, she did not resist. The
same is evident from her examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
However, later in her cross-examination, she stated that the bed sheet was
torn when she was resisting the act of the appellant. Further, the MLC of the
prosecutrix fortifies the fact that there was no resistance as there were no
Crl.A. 889/2015 Page 1 of 8
external or internal injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix or the
appellant. There are inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecutrix as to
where the appellant resided as in her examination-in-chief she stated that the
appellant resided at the backside of her house whereas in her cross-
examination, she stated that there were 3-4 houses in between her house and
the house of appellant.
Source: Indian Kanoon