No medical examination, HC acquits rape accused

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 28

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the medical examination of a rape accused is a must. It has acquitted an accused after holding that he was not subjected to a medical examination.

“As per the admitted case of the prosecution, no medical examination of the appellant-accused Ravinder Kumar was conducted. This is in utter violation of the provisions of Section 53-A of Criminal Procedure Code as the said provision is mandatory,” the High Court has ruled.

The Law Commission of India had recommended amendment to the CrPC to facilitate scientific investigation. Sections 53 and 54 of the CrPC were introduced in 1973 and amended in 2005. Section 53 (A) was introduced to ensure compulsory medical examination of the accused in rape and attempt-to-rape cases.

In his appeal through counsel RS Bajaj, Ravinder Kumar had earlier challenged the judgment dated April 29, 2011, passed by Jalandhar Additional Sessions Judge vide which he was convicted for rape and other offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC.

The case was registered after the complainant’s daughter went missing from her house on July 9, 2010. The complainant alleged that his daughter was kidnapped by Chandan Kumar, who was later declared “proclaimed offender.” He alleged that accused Ravinder Kumar had a role in the kidnapping.

After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant-accused was recorded. The incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution was put before the accused for an explanation. He pleaded innocence and alleged he had been implicated. But the court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

Counsel Bajaj contended that the medical examination of the appellant-accused was not conducted and there were material discrepancies in the statement of witnesses, rendering the prosecution story doubtful. He said the FIR was lodged after six days and the prosecution was unable to explain this delay. On this ground too the appellant was entitled to acquittal, he said.

Taking up the matter, the High Court asserted: “It is clear that there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that the appellant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix… As per the application moved by the prosecutrix, she has categorically stated that the appellant had neither raped her nor attempted to rape her...

“In view of the statement, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant, therefore, is entitled to the benefit of doubt…. The present appeal stands allowed and the judgment dated April 29, 2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges.”