Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The petitioner seeks to argue that the evidence being led in the second case is not worthy of reliance. The counsel for the petitioner was cautioned that it may not be desirable to subject the evidence to such scrutiny as is demanded midway the process. He nonetheless submitted that his arguments vis-à-vis the credibility be considered. The same are being taken up solely for the purpose of deciding the application at hand.

16. The petitioner argues that at the time of her medical examination in Lady Harding Medical College on 20.10.2016, attempt was made by the petitioner to project the second incident as a case of gang rape and one also involving sodomy, the petitioner in her statements not having supported the case of gang rape, the possibility of she having been sodomised requiring to be ruled out since there is no corroboration from medical opinion. This submission does not impress this Court in the context of issues which are under consideration here. Suffice it to state that, even in the MLC, the prosecutrix had clarified that she was not sure if she had been assaulted by three persons or only by one indulging in the act multiple times, though in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she was more clear pointing the finger at the petitioner alone. The medical officer does not seem to have medically examined the prosecutrix from the angle of sodomy. It appears that the allegations made in such regard were not brought to the notice of the medical officer at that stage. Be that as it may, the conclusions on this score will have to be reached by the trial court upon appreciation of the evidence in its entirety. It is not desirable to pick holes on the basis of selective reading of the evidence. It may be added that even in the MLC there is some indication of assault, it having left certain tell-tale signs (abrasions).