The girl was examined on 8.10 P.M. on 4th August, 2006, after institution of the F.I.R. on 3rd August, 2006 by a Medical Board comprising three Doctors, two of whom have deposed as P.W.8 and P.W.9. From a bare perusal of the nature of injury, it is not left to doubt that a serious sexual assault was committed on the girl, aged about 7-8 years. They have conducted pathological examination of the vaginal swab, but no spermatozoa was found dead or alive. However, the vaginal examination had revealed vulva swollen and tendered, hymen lacerated; Perineal tear up to anterior wall of the rectus, redness plus bleeding and tenderness on touch; white and reddish dried-up stain present on vulva, inner aspect of thigh, perineum and around the anus. Clothes were dried up with white and reddish stains when produced before the Medical Board. The wound was bleeding on touch, but wound margins were swollen, red, tender and some dried-up blood clot was also present. Time of injury was within 12 to 72 hours. The Doctors opined that forceful penetration of vagina had been tried, but it was not possible for them to say whether intercourse has been conducted by one or more persons. However, the testimony of the P.W.5, the minor girl and the nature of injuries found on her do not leave us with any element of doubt that she was subjected to serious sexual assault. The manner in which the injuries were caused right from the vulva to the anterior wall of the rectus itself go to show the serious nature of the assault. The commission of forceful sexual assault multiple times by more than one person upon such a minor girl is conclusively proved by the prosecution. We find no reason to doubt the ocular testimony of the victim i.e. the prosecutrix though she was aged 8-9 years at the time of her deposition. [See Rajkumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in (2014) 5 SCC 353 , Paras 18 and 19].
