"In the matter of Kidnapping and Rape, the evidence given by prosecutrix being, an illiterate and rustic young woman, some contradictions and omissions are natural as her recollection, memory, observance, and narration of a chain of events."
It was held by the Supreme Court in:

Correct option is B

In the case of State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the natural human limitations of a prosecutrix who is illiterate and from a rural background. The court recognized that minor contradictions and omissions in her testimony were expected due to the strain on her memory, recollection, and narrative abilities.
Information Booster: The Indian judiciary has often taken a sensitive approach in cases involving sexual offenses, particularly when the prosecutrix comes from a disadvantaged or vulnerable background. The court ensures that her testimony is not discredited solely due to minor inconsistencies, recognizing the trauma and stress involved in recounting such events.
Additional Knowledge:
· (a) Manoj Yadav v. Pushpa: Not directly relevant to this context but involves other legal principles.
· (c) Madhu Verma v. Urmila Devi: This case pertains to civil disputes, not directly related to criminal cases involving sexual offenses.
· (d) Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar: Although it deals with criminal law, it is not the authority for the principle mentioned in the question.