accused (Ex.PX-1) that "Pt. not
able to ejaculate, so semen sample could not be taken". It is also
mentioned that ... When the accused was not able to ejaculate and give his semen
sample and when the doctor has not examined his private parts to
ascertain
where efforts were made to take
semen sample but he could not ejaculate. Blood sample and pubic hair were
collected and it was mentioned
condoms. The condoms of
some of the accused fell off before the ejaculation.
59. This witness further deposed that she had told the doctor
Therefore, it has been established by the prosecution that the accused had
ejaculated upon the vulva of the child victim.
33. Section ... extent '. The medical and forensic evidence
proves that the accused had ejaculated upon the vulva of child victim. The age of
the child victim
this case, the accused must not have reached at the
stage of ejaculation, but partial penetration might have done by him.
During crossexamination ... this case the accused must not have reached at
the stage of ejaculation but partial penetration might
have been done
having touched her private parts with sexual
intent and had even ejaculated upon her body parts. Therefore, through the
evidence of child victim the prosecution
1441/2016 State vs. Devanand @ Deva page 31 of 46
in ejaculation and therefore in such cases there can
hardly arise any question of stains
accused. Further, the penetrative sexual may not
necessarily result in ejaculation.
The testimony of PW1/prosecutrix is categorical to the fact that
Firstly, there is nothing
on record to suggest that the accused had ejaculated at the time of incident. The
complainant deposed that the clothes
came to her room
and hit her breast and kissed her and ejaculated on her face, she
immediately woke up and turn on the light
