Medical Expert (PW.8), who had examined the victim, has clearly stated that the prosecutrix was having injuries on her person. Her evidence establishes the fact that there was forcible sexual intercourse several times by several persons. Her evidence also shows that on account of the said incident, the victim lost her virginity and there were also abrasions on the private parts of the victim. 8. No doubt that the prosecutrix and her mother and aunt in their cross-examination, which was recorded three and a half months after the recording of the examination-in-chief, have turned around and not supported the prosecution case. 9. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, relying on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana7, Sri Rabindra Kuamr Dey v. State of Orissa8, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka9, has held 6 (1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 INSC 153 7 (1976) 1 SCC 389 : 1975 INSC 306 8 (1976) 4 SCC