Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
7. This Court with the able assistance, of, the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.
8. The prime prosecution witness is PW-1, the prosecutrix. In her deposition, borne in her examination-in-chief, she testifies with aplomb, qua the accused holding her to coitus, on the date, and, at the place, mentioned in the FIR. Also, her deposition, as, borne in her examination-in-chief does visibly bear concurrence, with all the prima donna factum encapsulated, in the FIR. The aforesaid testification, rendered by the prosecution, in her examination-in-chief, remains unshred, of, its efficacy, even during the course, of, hers' being subjected to a rigorous and scathing cross-
affirmative answers hence stood meted, by the prosecutrix. Even beyond, the aforestated suggestion(s), being meted, to the prosecutrix, by the learned counsel, for the accused, yet the latter further meted suggestion(s),vis-à-vis, her (i) qua the filing of the FIR being a sequel, of, the accused, refusing to marry her. The effect of meetings, of, the aforesaid incriminatory suggestions, by the learned defence counsel, vis-à-vis the prosecutrix, whereto apposite therewith incriminatory acquiescing(s), hence emanated from her, especially with theirs devolving upon the accused, upon her meteing consent, to him qua his holding her to coitus, (i) and, concomitantly, of, his also rather rearing, the apposite defence, of, his inculpable misdemeanor, of, holding, the prosecutrix, to sexual intercourse, being a sequel of hers, hence meteing consent to him, (ii) ARE hence cumulatively, of the defence acquiescing, vis-à-vis, the accused holding consensual sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Furthermore, when the mother, of the prosecutrix, was, also held to cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, she also, during the course thereof, stood meted .
incriminatory suggestion(s), by the learned defence counsel, qua subsequent, to the marriage of the prosecutrix, and, upon payment of a sum of Rs.
20,000/-, the matter being settled, and, only upon further demands, for enhancing the sum(s) of settlement money, rather remaining un-acceded, to, thereupon the matter being reported to the Police.
Even though, the aforestated suggestion(s), were, answered in the dis-affirmative, by the prosecutrix, and by her mother, (iii) yet mere meteing(s), of, any dis-affirmative answers', by both, vis-à-vis, the aforestated incriminatory suggestion(s), purveyed to each, by the learned defence counsel, while holding both to cross-examination, is rather, inconsequential, rather the perse meteing(s) thereof, to the mother of the prosecutrix hence galvanizes, an inference, of the accused, hence unraveling his acquiescing(s), qua his guilt, and also hence his rearing, the apposite defence, (iv) devolving upon the capacity of the prosecutrix, to mete consent qua hence, his acquiescing misdemeanor, of, his holding the prosecutrix, to coitus.
9 Be that as it may, before dwelling, upon, the .
trite factum, of, the capacity of the prosecutrix, to mete consent, to the accused, for the latter holding her hence to coitus, it is imperative to adjudicate, upon, the espousal(s) addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the convict, (i) qua the prosecution being enjoined to prove the charge to the hilt, and, any meteing of any incriminatory suggestion(s), by the learned defence counsel, to the prosecutrix, and, to the mother of the prosecutrix, while holding each, to cross-examination, and, also the effect of any affirmative or dis-affirmative answers, being meted thereto, by the prosecution witnesses concerned, ipso facto not, proving the charge to the hilt, (ii) rather the meteing(s), of, incriminatory suggestion(s), by the learned defence counsel, vis-à-vis, each of the prosecution witnesses', and, rendition(s), of, any affirmative or dis-affirmative answers thereto, by them, being discardable,(iii) given all the aforesaid incriminatory suggestion(s), being not amenable, for being construable to be comprising any incriminatory statement, of the accused nor hence being construable, to be binding upon the accused, )iv) corollary whereof being, on .