Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, has vehemently argued that the primary evidence of the victims regarding commission of rape by these appellants has not weakened the prosecution's case of commission of gang rape on the ground that the electronic evidence could not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.417 of 2020 dt.28-06-2023 be proved at the trial. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1.

34. Further, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution's case of gang rape. PW-4 and PW-5, who were members of the medical board, in their depositions at the trial, proved the reports of the medical examination conducted on the victims on 21.06.2019. The medical board did not find any external or internal injuries on the body of the victims. PW-5, in her evidence, also deposed that no external or internal injuries were found on the private parts of the victims nor any sign of struggle was present on the persons of the victims. In her cross examination, PW-5 deposed that the victims were habituated to regular sex or intercourse and it was difficult to say whether rape had occurred or not. In response to the queries on behalf of the appellants during the cross examination, PW-4 and PW-5 answered that in case of gang rape, there must be struggle signs on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.417 of 2020 dt.28-06-2023 external and internal part of the body of the victims, which had not been found.