brassiere, no injuries of bite marks can be there. There were no injury on the private part of the prosecutrix and this evidence shows that witnesses are lying. The learned advocate further argued that PW19 Dr.Chitwan Dubey has incorrectly stated the time of examination as well as facts regarding examination of the prosecutrix. Evidence of the victim (PW1) in paragraph 15 to the effect that she was taken to KEM Hospital negates the theory of PW14 Dr.Hemlata Pandey. Evidence of PW14 Dr.Hemlata Pandey shows that she had been to Seven Hills Hospital for examination of the victim. It is further argued that the CCTV footage as seen from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, is not the original footage. The original CCTV footage was in the hard disk which was not produced before the court, and therefore, evidence regarding CCTV footage is totally inadmissible. The learned advocate argued that the prosecutrix was left on the spot by a person named Hemant Gupta. However, this material witness is not examined by the prosecution. Though spot of incident is stated to have been shown by the brother of the victim, he is also not examined by the prosecution. With this, according to the
