Honble REDDY, J. — The only ground urged in support of this appeal is that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the version of the prosecutrix who claims to have been raped by the appellant. That there is such a discrepancy is beyond doubt. However, the High Court has in explicit terms observed that the medical evidence had been influenced and deserved to be rejected. It appears that the Doctor examining the prosecutrix was changing her stand, as initially she had stated that there were signs of sexual intercourse, but later changed her opinion to say that there were no such signs. The prosecutrix was an unmarried girl coming from the weaker section of the society who pinned the appellant to be the one who had committed rape on her. Her words have been believed by both the Courts below. We see no reason to differ from the analysis of her statement and as to her credibility, as recorded by the High Court. There is, therefore, no ground to interfere in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document