Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

negatives the possibility of recent complete penetration. If the accused is not circumcised, the existence of smegma round the corona gland is proof against penetration

developed genital organs present. Pubic hair present, not matted. Smegma absent. Prepuce circumcised. No injuries seen anywhere on the body. No venereal disease seen

negatives the possibiloity of recent complete penetration. If the accused is not circumcised, the existence of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013

negatives the possibility of recent complete penetration. If the accused is not circumcised, the existence of smegma round the corona gland is proof against penetration

Pinki Pramanik vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 12 September, 2014 Author: Subrata

negatives the possibility of recent complete penetration. If the accused is not circumcised, the existence of smegma round the corona gland is proof against penetration

forming sexual intercourse. The male organ of the appellant was not circumcised and the doctor also noticed smegma inside the penetration. The underwear

Sabhajeet Maurya vs State Nct Of Delhi on 26 November, 2020 Author: Vibhu Bakhru Bench

negative the possibility of recent complete penetration. If the accused is not circumcised, the existence of smegma round the corona gland is proof against penetration

negatives the possibility of recent complete penetration. If the accused is not circumcised, the existence of smegma round the corona gland is proof against penetration