the FIR to the court did not vitiate the trial and did not prejudice the appellant; that any defect in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code, may not ipso facto vitiate the findings, unless prejudice is shown; and that the forensic/medical evidence is not always mandatory. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. In our view, the questions that crop up for our consideration revolve around – (i) the trustworthiness of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, in the light of certain contradictions; (ii) the consequences of the delay on the part of the Police in forwarding the FIR to the Court; (iii) the failure of the prosecution to produce forensic/medical evidence and its effect and (iv) the manner in which the questioning under Section 313 of the Code was undertaken and its effect upon the findings recorded. I. Trustworthiness of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 14. As we have indicated earlier, the guilt of the appellant is sought to be established by the prosecution, by (i) relying upon the 8