Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Seven bite marks by human teeth on breast, lower abdomen and thighs.
Presence of nail marks on the neck, face, breasts, abdomen, hands, buttocks, thighs and back at scapular region.
Dried seminal stains on the external genitalia, thighs and clothes of the deceased.
Rupture of hymen of recent origin as well as bruising of vagina and swelling of inflammation of vulva.

8. Presence of seminal stains on the external genitalia, thights and clothes of the deceased coupled with rupture of recent origin indicate sexual intercourse before death.

9. We may observe here that in the absence of any cross examination in this regard to show that bite marks on several places of the body and other marks were due to any other reason, they clearly point out to the commission of sadistic rape of the girl. The presence of scratch marks, bite marks with nails indicate that the sexual intercourse on the victim was against her wish or will and she had struggled to protect her honour. On considering and re-appreciating this material, it leaves no doubt in our mind that the victim was raped and them murdered by strangulation with the help of davani she was wearing. As such, the conclusion of the Trial Court in this regard has to be accepted as correct conclusion. But the main question before the Trial Court was who committed this ghastly act of rape and murder; and more importantly whether the prosecution had shown that it was the accused and accused alone who were the authors of the crime in question. On careful consideration of evidence, the Trial court has found that the evidence had conclusively shown that the accused had committed this ghastly crime. We have to reconsider that evidence in the light of the points urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that this conclusion of the Trial Court was not correct.

16. This presence of the accused at the spot or involvement of the accused with the crime especially rape is further substantiated by the prosecution from the evidence of the doctors. We have already noted that there is no much dispute as to the deceased being subjected to rape. There is sufficient, clear and un-challenged medical evidence in this regard. But so far as the involvement to the presence or the participation of the accused is concerned, we further have the evidence of Dr. P. Basavaraju, who has examined the accused at about 7.45 in the evening when produced by the police. So far as the accused No. 1, Shivu is concerned, this doctor has noticed the abrasive wound on the back, hip, legs and arms. He has also noted nail scratch marks on his face, neck, chest, inner thigh and the genital organ. Further he has noticed bite marks on his right hand and stomach. Similarly so far as accused No. 2 Jadeswamy is concerned, the Doctor has noted nail scratch marks and abrasion. These are indicative of the fact that the victim while fighting for her honour had tried to defend herself with the only available weapons like nails and teeth, which has left indelible marks on the culprits. More damaging is the finding of soft skin pieces and clotted blood particles in the teeth of these accused. If one peruses the post mortem report, the doctors have specifically noted that there were deep bite marks on all over the victim more prominent were on left cheek, breasts and thighs. P.W. 12 in this regard has specifically stated that by measuring the bite marks on the dead body and by considering the skin and the blood particles found in the mouth of the accused and their denture it is possible even to identify which bite marks was caused by which of the accused. This positive indicative evidence of two expert doctors who were subjected to cross examination, has remained practically unchallenged. In our view these marks of bite and nail scratches were left by the victim while defending her honour and life and similarly the fact that the victim was assaulted with teeth would also indicate the brutal and sadistic nature of the rapists. These corresponding injuries, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever by themselves are sufficient to prove that it is the accused and accused alone who committed the rape and fearing disclosure later murdered Shivamma. Once this conclusion is reached, we need not go further.