They are: (i) the version that the respondent had misbehaved with her in the police station and had molested her could not be believed because she did not complain about the same to the other police officers who were present in the police station main hall on the ground floor or to her relatives who were called to the police station; (ii) the conduct of the respondent in calling her par ents and in giving them an opportunity to take her with them does not smack of an evil mind; (iii) the evidence of the prosecutrix that the respondent was instrumental in lodging her in Anand Mahal Hotel room is not supported by any evidence; (iv) the conduct of the prosecutrix in not informing and seeking assistance from the hotel management after the first incident and even after the second incident of rape in the hotel 128 room is unnatural and surprising; (v) the find of semen stains on the 'salwar ' and 'kurta ' of the prosecutrix runs counter to her evidence that on both the occasions she was completely denuded before she was ravished; (vi) the absence of marks of physical violence also runs counter to her version that when she tried to raise an alarm she was slapped by the respondent; (vii) the evidence of PW 3 Dr. Vijaya and the medical report exhibit 17 do not lend corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix that the respondent had sexual intercourse with her notwithstanding the resistence offered by her; (viii) the report of the Assistant Chemical Analyst exhibit 71 shows that neither semen nor spermatozoa were detected from the vaginal smear and slides that were forwarded for analysis; and (ix) the evidence of PW 12 Dr. More and his report exhibit 41 shows that no physical injuries were found on the person of the respondent to indicate that he had forcible sexual intercourse shortly before his examination.