870 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case, medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is a crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis by a medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, and not a medical one.’ And this passage was approved by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad v Nanal Dubey (1992) 3 SCC 204. The Supreme Court in another case had also relied on the work by another esteemed writer Parikh, entitled Parikh’s Textbook on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (5th Ed p 439), where the learned writer had said: ‘Sexual intercourse — In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of the semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains.’ Basing on the authoritative work, the Supreme Court in the Harpal Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 had proceeded to hold that absence of injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix would not rule out her being subjected to rape (see Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes (24th Ed) pp 1798–1799). Again, in this case before me, from the evidence of the pathologist (‘SP5’) it could be reasonably concluded that there was sexual intercourse where there was present in the private part of the deceased the sperm which the chemist (‘SP8’) had confirmed to belong to the accused. These had come in the form of specimens marked as ‘E15(e)’ (‘vulva luar’) and ‘E15(g)’ (‘high vagina’) which had been found to contain the accused’s DNA profile and a mixed DNA profile originating from both the accused and the deceased, respectively. Under the circumstances, I found that there was penetration by the accused of his penis into the deceased’s private part and that he had ejaculated therein thus accounting for what can be seen in the relevant photograph tendered by the prosecution in this court. The accused had never suggested nor had he put to SP5 as to the manner how his DNA could be found inside the deceased’s private part, as could be seen in photograph marked as P6(I) and P6(J), other than that as was suggested by SP5 in his answers to questions by the learned deputy. Although there were no injuries discerned by SP5 at the private parts of the deceased, nevertheless from the presence of and the state of the items recovered from the scene of crime, including the bloodied knife sheath, the only reasonable inference to be derived therefrom would be that there had been forced entry into the deceased’s private part by the accused’s penis. The lead CSI police officer (SP7) had said that there were signs of struggle in the room from his analysis of the scene of crime and the fact that the pathologist (SP5) had said that the deceased had suffered defensive wounds on parts of her body further fortified that inevitable conclusion by this court. Although Chief Inspector Collin Babat (SP7) had agreed with learned counsel’s suggestion that there could be more than two people involved in the struggle, nevertheless, the evidence of the chemist (SP8) had effectively A B C D E F G H I