Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Babloo (the mother of the victim appears to be indicating towards some ejaculation on the part of accused). As per her version she somehow obtained

offence of rape, penetrative sexual assault may not necessarily result in ejaculation and therefore in such cases there can hardly arise any question of stains

accused having penetrated the child victim per rectum, he might not have ejaculated inside the anus of the child victim

Thus, it is not the case where the prosecution alleges any ejaculation at the spot or on clothes of the victim, thus, in these facts

removed her underwear, had touched her posterior with sexual intent and had ejaculated on her posterior, therefore, the ingredients of Section

accused. Further, the penetrative sexual may not necessarily result in ejaculation. In the instant case both the accused and the prosecutrix are grown

took off the pajami of the victim and inserted his fingers, he ejaculated which is the reason for the wetting of the pajami

specimens. The actual time that spermatozoa may remain alive after ejaculation cannot be precisely defined, but is usually a matter of hours. Seymour claimed

nowhere in her testimony, the victim has testified that the accused had ejaculated after commission of the rape as such the absence of semen

matter of record that during medical examination, the accused could not ejaculate and therefore his semen samples could not be collected. Hence, the argument ... further mentions "vulva slightly moist". The possibility of accused having ejaculated at the time of incident cannot be, thus, ruled