Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. P.W.20-Dr.Ramesh is an important witness for the prosecution. He examined the bite marks on the second accused and took impressions of the same, which was compared with the teeth of P.W.1 and submitted his report under Ex.P22. According to him, the bite marks found on the second accused were made with the teeth of P.W.1.

24. P.W.20's evidence is very important for the prosecution. He was the then Dean of M.G.P.G.I. He examined the second accused, after his arrest, as requested by the investigating officer. He found two bite marks on the body of the second accused. He took photographs of the same and preserved. Then, the teeth of P.W.1 were photographed. He being an expert, compared both the the photographs and submitted a report under Ex.P22. According to him, the bite marks which were found on the second accused would have been caused by biting, by P.W.1. We find no reason to reject this expert's opinion. The second accused has got no explanation to offer as to how the bite marks on his body came into being. Thus, the evidence of this expert clearly corroborates the evidence of P.W.1, wherein, she has stated that at the time when the second accused tried to sexually assault her, she bite him. This, in our https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis considered view, is a very strong piece of evidence, which duly corroborates the evidence of P.W.1.