Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. P.W. 3 is a panch witness to the spot, seizure of blood sample of accused, clothes of victim etc. In the cross-examination, except for suggestions, there is nothing material.

15. P.W. 4 is Medical Officer. She examined victim on 26-10-2019. She found tenderness and odema (swelling) on her vagina. She noted history of bleeding since 23-10-2019. She opined that the tenderness and odema to vagina might be trial of forceful intercourse. In the cross-examination, she deposed that she had taken history of incident from victim's mother. She also enquired about the history of incident from the victim but she did not say anything. She admitted that her opinion is not conclusive. She further admitted that there were no marks of any injury on the body of victim. She also admitted that in such cases, there is possibility of injury on other parts 10 jg.cri.appeal 744.2022.odt of body as also on the body part of the person attempting to force himself. She deposed that no injury was found on the private part of the appellant. She also admitted that injury can be caused while playing. She did not enquire about whether victim fell down. She admitted that victim was walking normally on that day.

24. Thus, there is a reason why FIR was not lodged on 23-10-2019 but was lodged on 26-10-2019. P.W. 1 got knowledge of incident only on 26-10-2019 and promptly reported the matter to police. The argument of appellant's counsel that there occurred delay in lodging FIR and therefore, case of prosecution is weakened, is without substance and is accordingly rejected.

25. P.W. 9's evidence also indicates that the matter was not taken up seriously. He also believed that injury occurred because victim fell down who complained of bleeding from vagina. The Doctor advised Titanus injection and gave certain tablets. He referred the victim to District Woman Hospital, Amravati for expert opinion. P.W. 4 examined the victim on 26-10-2019 viz. subsequent to lodging FIR. She found tenderness and odema on vagina with history of bleeding since 23-10-2019. She opined that there might be trial of forceful intercourse. Her evidence in cross-examination that her opinion is not conclusive, will be of no help to the appellant to argue that the tenderness and odema on vagina occurred for some other reason than what was attributed by victim. The opinion is given based on the medical examination and the nature of injury found on the private 14 jg.cri.appeal 744.2022.odt part of the victim. According to the Doctor, the injury was such that could occur because of forceful intercourse. Such opinion would neither mean that the injury indeed occurred because of forceful intercourse nor that someone made an attempt of forceful intercourse. The opinion is spelling out possibility of causing injury. Here, one will have to take into account the victim's version where she said that appellant attempted to insert something in her private part. She has not deposed that appellant attempted to force himself on her. The evidence indicates that appellant attempted to insert some object which resulted bleeding injury to vagina. One will have to also consider age of the victim and her ability to describe the object. She being minor, aged about 4½ years either has not seen the object or was unable to describe the same. She went to the house of appellant for playing. Her focus must be elsewhere when appellant attempted to insert something. That being so, absence of description of object is not fatal. Her testimony that appellant made an attempt to insert something will have to be thus accepted as an attempt to insert object, which resulted into bleeding injury. The loud crying of victim would further substantiate her version.