alarm but failed to do so. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be believed considering her conduct. He submitted that the Sessions Court, on two occasions, acquitted the accused after making detailed consideration of the evidence on record. He pointed out that after the remand, the Sessions Court, after considering the evidence of the prosecutrix, concluded that there were contradictions in her testimony, and she Criminal Appeal no.2567 of 2024 etc. Page 3 of 15made improvements. Moreover, her conduct on the date of occurrence does not support the theory of sexual intercourse without her consent. He submitted that the High Court should not have interfered only because another view was possible on the same evidence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State urged that the judgment of the Sessions Court, after remand, is perverse. He submitted that no reasonable person, after reading the testimony of the prosecutrix, would conclude that the sexual intercourse