Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. After his apprehension, he was examined by Dr. K.K.Patnaik (P.W. 13) on 26.12.2007, who was Assistant Professor, Department of F.M.T., M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. He has stated on oath that on examination of the private part of the accused, he found no erectile dysfunction and there was nothing to suggest that the accused was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. He found the frenum was loose and elastic with a haemorrhagic abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm close to its attachment with the shaft. On examination of the glans of the penis, he found tip of glans cornified with oedema and inflammation. Four to five small haemorrhagic abrasions were found close to the base of the glans around corona glandis. He also found two loose hairs sticking to the glans-surface, which were collected and preserved separately. There he did not find any mechanical injuries anywhere on the body of the accused except his private parts. The doctor has very positively opined that the presence of injuries, as described above, on the private parts of the accused are consistent with forcible penetration of the erected penis and therefore, there was medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has not mentioned the age of the injuries on the private part of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused argued that such injuries are possible as he is a married man. Though the witness has been cross-examined, not a single suggestion has been given that the injuries were possible for having sexual intercourse with his own wife. It is admitted that the accused is a married man having children. So argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that he has explained that he has sustained such injuries while cohabiting with his wife, is also not proper. In order to advance such an argument, the witness i.e. P.W. 13 should have been asked pointed question regarding possibility of injuries on his private part while cohabiting with his wife with consent. Moreover, the accused has not stated in his Section 313 of the Code statement that he sustained injuries on his penis while cohabiting with his wife.