Court spells out Legal sections that doctors need to follow while examining rape victims
Allahabad: Now all the medical officers in Uttar Pradesh strictly need to comply with the Section 164 A (2) and (3) Cr.P.C. while submitting the medical report and their provisional/primary opinion after examining a rape victim.
This direction has come from the Allahabad High Court bench while the Court was considering a bail application of an accused in a rape case. The bench comprising of Justice Manish Kumar noted that the medical report of the rape victim didn't mention anything relevant.
Thus, the High Court bench directed the Principal Secretary and Director General of Medical Health to issue circular to all the Chief Medical Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh directing the medical officers to strictly the provisions of Cr.P.C. and particularly Section 164 A (2) and (3) Cr.P.C. while submitting the medical report and their provisional/primary opinion.
Also Read: Court Relief: Criminal proceedings against paediatrician Dr Kafeel Khan quashed
The Cr.P.C. section in question mentions-
"(1) Where, during the stage when an offence of committing rape or attempt to commit rape is under investigation, it is proposed to get the person of the woman with whom rape is alleged or attempted to have been committed or attempted, examined by a medical expert, such examination shall be conducted by a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner, by any other registered medical practitioner, with the consent of such woman or of a person competent to give such consent on her behalf and such woman shall be sent to such registered medical practitioner within twenty-four hours from the time of receiving the information relating to the commission of such offence.
(2) The registered medical practitioner, to whom such woman is sent, shall, without delay, examine her person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following particulars, namely:— (i) the name and address of the woman and of the person by whom she was brought; (ii) the age of the woman; (iii) the description of material taken from the person of the woman for DNA profiling; (iv) marks of injury, if any, on the person of the woman; (v) general mental condition of the woman; and (vi) other material particulars in reasonable detail.
(3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at.
(4) The report shall specifically record that the consent of the woman or of the person competent to give such consent on her behalf to such examination had been obtained.
(5) The exact time of commencement and completion of the examination shall also be noted in the report.
(6) The registered medical practitioner shall, without delay forward the report to the investigating officer who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in section 173 as part of the documents referred to in clause (a) of subsection (5) of that section.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as rendering lawful any examination without the consent of the woman or of any person competent to give such consent on her behalf."
The High Court was listening to a bail plea by an accused, who was booked under Sections 363,342,376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. During the hearing of the case on August 16, the counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the medical report of the victim to establish that nothing has been come out from the medical report which could support the ocular evidence.
After perusing the medical report the Court expressed its surprise that the doctor had not written anything relevant in the report and also in the column namely Provisional/Primary Medical Opinion, only the height and weight etc of the victim had been written.
When the bench asked the doctor in question as to why, she did not give any provisional opinion in the Column no. 23 regarding the alleged offence in the FIR, she stated that the opinion could only be given after receiving the supplementary report.
However, not paying heed to the contention of the doctor, the Court observed, "The provisional/Primary opinion is to be given without waiting for the investigation reports. After the investigation reports, the supplementary report is to be followed and that is why column of Provisional/Primary opinion is prior to the supplementary report. The Provisional/Primary opinion is to be given as per the clinical examination of the victim."
In this context, the AGA pointed out before the Court that Section 164 A (3) Cr.P.C. provided that the report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at. He also produced a copy of the medical report format from the file of some other case where there is a specific column providing to give report as per Section 164 A (2) and (3) Cr.P.C.
Thus, the bench noted that in most of the cases, provisional opinion is always given by the doctors, who have clinically examined the victims. "It is for the first time when such flimsy report has come before this Court," noted the Court.
When the AGA referred to the prescribed format in which the medical report needs to be prepared, the High Court bench noted that the particular format was missing in the medical record relevant to the present case.
At this outset, the bench directed the Principal Secretary and Director General of Medical Health to issue circular to all the Chief Medical Officers of the State directing the medical officers to strictly comply the provisions of Cr.P.C. and particularly Section 164 A (2) and (3) Cr.P.C. while submitting the medical report and their provisional/primary opinion.
Further, the bench also directed that the prescribed format shall be uniform for all the districts of the State.
To read the Court order, click on the link below.
