15 handle when they had argued about her refusal to have sexual intercourse. The complainant reported that she did not wish to be married to the appellant. She wanted to be with her mother and return to school. Her mother was contacted and the complainant was taken to a doctor. [31] Dr Narula testified that she had examined the complainant on 3 March 2010. The complainant appeared traumatised, fearful and tearful, still wearing her amadaki dress. During examination Dr Narula noted a huge gaping wound on the lower thigh that had become septic, as well as two healing abrasions on the complainant’s left forearm and a haematoma on her toe. On gynaecological examination she found a healing tear of the hymen, scarring of the posterior fourchette, redness at the hymen and bilateral vestibular redness of the vagina, as well as vaginal discharge. Her findings were compatible with the history given as well as recent forceful vaginal penetration by a penis or object. Dr Narula testified that the complainant was a virgin prior to sustaining the gynaecological injuries. [32] Dr Narula referred the complainant to the hospital’s casualty unit to manage her leg wound. The wound was irrigated and dressed and the complainant was given a tetanus injection and antibiotics. She was also referred to a social worker because she was so obviously traumatised. It was Dr Narula’s opinion that the open leg wound was consistent with the complainant having been assaulted with the handle of a mop or broom, and that the injuries on her arm