Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The further contention of the appellants' learned Counsel is that the witness viz. Shakuntla is a liar inasmuch as she has stated that she had no sexual Intercourse before that and that her hymen was ruptured and there was bleeding from her private parts and the bed-sheet was soiled with blood. The lady doo tor, who examined her. did not find any bleeding nor any swelling. The rupture of her hymen was also not recent but was old and her vagina admitted of two fingers and from the evidence it appeared that she was used to sexual intercourse. Further it is contended that she Is above 16 years of age and she has made a wrong statement about her age. Hence the learned1 counsel submits that the statement of the witness is not believable and conviction cannot be based unless her statement finds corroboration from other independent source. The learned Advocate-General has very emphatically argued that she is a girl of a Poor class with no intelligence no education and that even if she was unchaste she could not he expected to make any statement against her modesty and merely because the doctor found that her hymen was not recently torn will not negative the story of rape. The statement of the doctor was a mere opinion. The testimony of the witnesses could not be discarded on the ground that there were some contradictions in it.