seen him. Yet again the witness changed his version and stated that Chintu had
not talked with him as he had gone to his village ... that prosecutrix is unreliable and untrustworthy witness
as she has constantly changed her version. It is thus contended that based on the
testimony
State vs . Parmod on 26 April, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT
prosecutrix is an unreliable and untrustworthy witness who has
repeatedly changed her version and thus accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of
all charges ... subsequent rape by accused Mohd. Amir. This witness has, however, changed her
version from time to time and made considerable improvements in her testimony
their own accord on 08.03.2012.
The prosecutrix J, however, kept changing her version regarding forcible
sexual intercourse by the accused Salman. In her examination ... injury on her person. Considering that the prosecutrix J repeatedly
changed her version , she is not a trustworthy witness and even otherwise,
her testimony
said statement, the victim S repeatedly changed her version as would be seen from
detailed reproduction of her statement hereinbelow :
".... I was earlier also ... seen that the
prosecutrix has been repeatedly changing her version with a view to save herself and to
rule out the possibility of her consent
cannot
be relied upon at all as she changed her version in each of her
statement recorded either by police or by Ld. Magistrate. Hence ... testimony it is evident that the 'P' has changed her
version every time whenever gave statement. In her statement
ExPW1/DB given
raped.
23. In her testimony before the court, the prosecutrix changed her version and
completely exnorated A-3 to have committed rape on her person ... stated that A-3 was not known to
her.
24. This changed version of the prosecutrix at different stages creates doubt
about the story presented
insufficient to hold appellant guilty. As pointed out above, she had changed her version from time to time and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. This
mean by „Galat Kaam‟?", the witness introduced an entirely new version
and disclosed that her sister had informed her that there were four persons ... brother - Rakesh. When PW-10 (Sushma) again appeared on
16.08.2012, she changed her version and stated that „X‟ had left the house
at about
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she changed her version and levelled allegation of rape against all five persons. Trial is still pending
