Mumbai: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that medical evidence cannot be treated as substantial evidence in sexual assault cases without other strong corroborative evidence.
Justice GA Sanap set aside the 20-year prison sentence imposed by a lower court on a 51-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl, finding that the conviction relied excessively on medical evidence. Justice Sanap emphasised that medical evidence, while corroborative, cannot be the primary basis for conviction.
“The learned Judge has accepted this history of assault as an important piece of evidence. In my view, the learned Judge was not right in accepting the evidence of the medical officer as substantive evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. The evidence of the medical officers can be used as corroborative evidence..” the court said.
It added that in the absence of substantive evidence regarding occurrence of the incident, it was not proper on the part of the trial Judge to place implicit reliance on the medical evidence to base the conviction.
On January 5, 2022, when the victim, visiting her uncle’s home in Nagpur, was allegedly lured and assaulted by the accused, her landlord. A subsequent medical examination revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault, leading the victim’s mother to file a complaint. In June 2023, the trial court convicted the accused, relying on medical findings and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, sentencing him to 20 years in prison.
The man challenged this sentence before the HC.
The man’s advocate argued that key witnesses, including the victim and her relatives, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The appeal contended that medical evidence could not serve as direct proof of the crime. The prosecution maintained that medical findings corroborated the charge, but the Court noted the absence of allegations of penetrative assault by the victim or her mother.
The Court also clarified that a Section 164 CrPC statement recorded by a Magistrate cannot constitute substantive evidence for conviction. It concluded that the trial court erred in heavily relying on medical evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The learned Judge has handed down the sentence of 20 years to the appellant. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant,” the Court ruled, acquitting the accused.
