Medical evidence cannot be sole basis for conviction in sexual assault cases: Bombay HC acquits 51-year-old man
Bombay High Court
Nagpur: Citing lack of substantial evidence, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently acquitted a 51-year-old man previously convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old minor girl determining that medical evidence by itself cannot be the sole basis for convictions in sexual assault cases.
Setting aside a ruling by the Session Court in Nagpur that sentenced the accused man to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment in 2023, Single Bench Judge GA Sanap ruled that there was no other substantive evidence to prove the charge against the accused except for the medical evidence which could be used as strong corroborative evidence but not as a substantive piece of evidence.
Also read- TN Nurse attacked, sexually assaulted by youth while returning from hospital
The case dates back to January 5, 2022, when the victim visited her uncle’s Nagpur home. The petitioner, the landlord of the property who is the accused in this case allegedly lured the girl to a secluded area and sexually assaulted her. Following this, the victim's mother filed a complaint and a medical examination of the victim was conducted which revealed that more than one injury was found to her private part.
Based on the medical examination report, the accused was arrested and presented before the session court convicted the man based on the medical evidence and the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced the accused to 20 years in prison in June 2023.
After hearing the facts, the Bench found inconsistencies in the evidence. It observed that the victim, her mother, and her maternal aunt- key witnesses in the incident had turned hostile during the trial and did not support the allegations in their testimonies.
The court emphasized that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be considered substantive evidence as well as for the purpose of corroboration when the witness does not support the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, it held that while medical evidence indicated injuries, it could not independently establish guilt without direct or corroborative evidence.
"In my view, the learned Judge was not right in accepting the evidence of the medical officer as substantive piece of evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. The evidence of the medical officer can be used as corroborative evidence. In this case, the victim, the mother of the victim and the maternal aunt of the victim have not whispered about the incident of a penetrative sexual assault on the victim. They have turned their back to the prosecution.
In the absence of substantive evidence as to the occurrence of the incident it was not proper on the part of the learned Judge to place implicit reliance on the medical evidence to base the conviction of the appellant. Except for the evidence of the medical officer, there is no other substantive evidence to prove the charge against the appellant," observed the Bench.
Quashing the Session Judge's ruling, the Bench concluded that it was a patent mistake of the judge to convict a man without any direct evidence of the crime. It also added that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, it directed the immediate release of the petitioner.
To view the official order click on the link below:
