ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATE: The prosecutrix PW-4, who was a deaf and dumb lady, deposed by means of gestures that she was raped by the petitioners on 20.10.1992.Whether the rape occurred or not in a given case is a legal conclusion, and not a medical one. In said regards, it is important to note the following observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Madan Gopal Kakkad v Naval Dubey (1992) 2 SCR 921:- “37. We feel that it would be quite appropriate, in this context, to reproduce the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty First Edition) at page 369 which reads thus: Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the Labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the 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, not a medical one.