Refer to the evidence of surgeon Abel Arumugam about the anal condition of Sukma today. For everybody's information , haemorrhoids and anal fissures are very common conditions in both males and females. These can proof nothing and definitely not sodomy. So I think the prosecution in this case is barking at the wrong tree.
The only evidence which may be of help would be to demonstrate keratinization of the mucosal part of the anus (microscopic) and that too only if there is prolonged or regular insult to the anus or rectum. This insult may not necessarily be by sodomy. Regular use of corrosive suppositories or by any blunt objects can also cause such changes.
I am surprised that the prosecution is so naive as to get such flimsy
indicators as evidences in such an important case like this and yet refuse
to act against corruption when the proofs are screaming in front
A general practitioner,