in this case PW1 is the victim. In her earliest statement, Ex.P1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she states petitioner had come to the house and enquired, improvement of her skin disease and it was in the presence of victim mother, the petitioner and mother of victim was speaking face to face. At that time, petitioner is said to have pinched the victim on her chest and also inserted his finger into her private parts and there are exaggeration and improvement, PW2 mother of the victim also gives an exaggerated version. The admitted position is that PW2 mother of the victim was present and the petitioner at that time is said to have made sexual assault on PW1 which is highly unlikely. Though the victim informed her mother about pain, she had not even whispered or murmured shown any resistance, the pain should be instant, when the mother was very much present, such a conduct would be highly improbable. Further, the doctor PW6 who examined victim and issued Ex.P7 and P8, confirms no reddishness or any marks or any abnormality found on physical examination of the victim which was done immediately. It is also seen that in the AR copy, the name of the accused as veterinary compounder is recorded which causes some doubt. It is not a requirement. Further, from the facts of the case, there is nothing to show that there could have been any penetrative sexual assault.
