her to have similar relation with his friends also. From this, it comes out that the appellant was not averse to her sexual relationship with 2nd respondent and what irked her was insistence of second respondent to develop similar relationship with his friends also. Those “friends” of 2nd respondent, however, have remained unnamed and unidentified. As per complaint, Exhibit P3, the episode in the first instance was disclosed to appellant’s mother, who, however, has not come forward to support this version. Evidence of appellant’s brother, namely Ravi Dutt (PW1) leads us nowhere as regards the prosecution version because he claims to have gained knowledge of the episode from the appellant only. He,however, does not say that on 11.05.2012, the day on which appellant is stated to have disclosed the entire episode to him, or prior thereto he noticed any struggle marks, viz., torn clothes or visible scratches on the body of the appellant or signs of annoyance or helplessness on her face. Even the Board of Doctors, of which Dr. Rama Narula (PW2) was a part, did not notice any external injury marks on the body and genital of the appellant. Appellant was medico-legally examined on 11.05.2012. In the medico-legal report, Exhibit P1, the Board of Doctors did not say that the appellant was sexually assaulted. On 01.06.2012, on application of the Investigating Officer also, the doctor did not give a positive and specific opinion that the appellant was subjected to sexual intercourse, rather gave a very uncertain opinion that “the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out”.
