Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In course of the coitus the vagina of P.W. 1 got ruptured and there was profuse bleeding. P.W. 1 could not get up after the merciless ravishment. The appellant, thereafter carried her to the tank holding a rag fixed to her vagina and there he washed her vagina in the tank. In spite of the wash, the bleeding was not checked and the appellant made P.W. 1. wear her cloth and asked her to tell P.W. 3 that a Kuncha' or stick accidentally got inside her vagina as a result of which the bleeding had occurred.

There was profuse bleeding from vagina; separation of thigh was very painful. Examination also was very painful. As to the cause of injury she was of opinion that it was due probably to forcible coitus. The appellant was examined by P.W.6 and he found no marks of injury on his face hands, thigh, genitals or other parts of his body. Thus, it is found that if P.W.I, was not forcibly ravished by a strong adult, the upper part of the vaginal orifice would not have been injured. There can be such injuries only if the girl is very small one and there was forcible cohabitation. Admittedly, P.W.2 had stated that if there was forcible coitus by a strong adult with a small girl the penis of the male may sometimes be injured, The doctor P.W.6 did not find any mark of injury on the penis of the appellant. Long arguments were advanced at the Bar that this itself is a fact which entitles the appellant to an acquittal. Modi in his Treatise on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 13th Edition, while dealing with the injuries on a male person had observed at p. 325 that it is not necessary that there should always be marks of injuries on the penis in such cases.