Material inconsistencies and unexplained FIR delay undermined the prosecution case, leading to acquittal in a rape and kidnapping matter.

Conviction for kidnapping, abduction, rape and criminal intimidation was found unsustainable because the prosecutrix's versions in the DDR, FIR, Section 161 CrPC statement and Section 164 CrPC statement were materially inconsistent. The accused's name did not appear in the initial version, the delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, and the surrounding circumstances suggested that the prosecutrix had left the house voluntarily. The allegation of rape was not consistently attributed to the appellant, creating reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for kidnapping, abduction, rape, and criminal intimidation were sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The prosecutrix's versions in the DDR, FIR, statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were found materially inconsistent. The accused's name did not appear in the initial version, the delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, and the evidence suggested that the prosecutrix had left the house voluntarily. The allegation of rape was also not consistently attributed to the appellant, and the surrounding circumstances created doubt about the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---