5. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence 7 (Seven) witnesses including the IO and Medical Officer (MO for short). On the incriminating circumstances against the appellant projected by the prosecution witnesses several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. The plea of the appellant was of total denial.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had a love relationship with the victim X since 2017. The victim got engaged to Y and later, her marriage was solemnized with Y. Her relationship before her marriage was consensual with the appellant. It has been falsely alleged that the appellant forcefully committed rape on the victim. The evidence clearly reveals that the victim on her own volition went with the appellant to the hotel. The evidence of the hotel employee, PW-5 clearly reveals that the victim and the appellant identified themselves as husband and wife and booked a room for 2-3 hours. The Trial Court has relied on the sole testimony of the victim and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant had committed rape on the victim.

7. The cross-examination of the victim clearly reveals that there