was fit to give statement, but those things are not at all visible from Exhibit-2. Moreover, at Para-4 of her cross-examination, it is evident that she had disclosed that she had inquired from the victim whether police had threatened, whereupon she had disclosed that she has come along with her mother, but she was very much afraid of. Though, nothing has been disclosed at her end either in her examination-in-chief or during crossexamination that she had given sufficient time to console herself (victim) and that being so, that part is found completely blurred. 11. PW-6 is the doctor, who had examined the victim on 28.03.2016, that means to say, on the date of occurrence itself, though report is dated 30.03.2016. Apart from other finding, she had found hymen ruptured, however, no mark of violence present over her body nor even on her private part. Vaginal swab was taken out and sent for pathological examination, which was received on 30.03.2016 and as per pathological report, neither alive or dead spermatozoa was found. The ultimate finding recorded by the doctor happens to be no recent sign of sexual intercourse, but rape cannot be denied. During cross-examination, she had stated that rape is not only a criteria for rupture of hymen rather so many events are responsible, more particularly horse riding, cycling etc.
