Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2.(i) The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim child aged about 10 years were known to each other and residing in the same village; that on 07.04.2019 at about 4.00 p.m., when the parents of the victim child were out of station and when the victim child and her brother were alone in the house, the accused went to the house of the victim child, took her and her brother to the terrace of their house; that he __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:22:19 pm ) sent the victim child’s brother to a shop and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault by first kissing the victim child, applying his mouth to the genital organ of the victim child and forcing his private part on the private part of the victim child and also ejaculated sperm on the victim child; and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.
19. Firstly, there was no reason why the victim child was not subjected to medical examination on the day of complaint. Secondly, the doctor’s evidence shows that the victim child was not subjected to any violence. She had found no injury in genitals and the vaginal smear also proved negative for spermatozoa. That apart, it is the prosecution case __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:22:19 pm ) that the appellant had ejaculated sperm on the victim child. The victim had also not stated about the said fact in her deposition. Though the dress and undergarment of the victim [M.O.1 & M.O.2] and the appellant [M.O.3 to M.O.5] were seized nothing incriminating was found to establish the prosecution case that the appellant had ejaculated sperm on the victim child. The investigating officer [PW21] had admitted in his cross-examination that no sperm was detected in either the dress of the victim or the appellant. Therefore, the medical evidence and the evidence of the investigating officer are totally contrary to the version of the victim child.