The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently delivered an important ruling regarding the reliance on medical evidence in sexual assault cases. In the case of Pradeep Gulabrao Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra, the Court concluded that medical evidence cannot be treated as the sole substantial evidence in such cases, especially when there is insufficient corroborative evidence to support the charge.
Justice GA Sanap, in his judgment, clarified that while medical evidence can play a vital role in corroborating the testimonies of victims, it cannot, in isolation, establish guilt. The ruling came as a response to the conviction of a man who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison by a lower court in Nagpur for the alleged sexual assault of a 10-year-old girl. The lower Court had primarily relied on the medical evidence and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to convict the accused. However, the High Court found the conviction flawed, citing the lack of substantial supporting evidence.
Justice Sanap expressed concerns about the trial court’s reliance on medical findings as the central evidence for the conviction, stating, “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.” He further emphasized that medical officers’ testimony should only serve as corroborative evidence and not be the primary basis for a conviction. The absence of other concrete evidence, such as eyewitness accounts or physical evidence linking the accused to the crime, led the High Court to question the trial court’s decision.
The case involved an incident that took place on January 5, 2022, when the victim visited her uncle’s home in Nagpur. The accused, a landlord, allegedly lured the young girl to a secluded area on his property and assaulted her. Following the assault, a medical examination revealed physical injuries consistent with sexual assault. The victim’s mother filed a complaint, leading to the arrest of the accused.
In June 2023, the trial court convicted the accused, primarily based on the medical evidence and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. However, during the appeal, the defence argued that key witnesses, including the victim, her mother, and her maternal aunt, had turned hostile, and their testimonies were inconsistent. The defence contended that the medical evidence should only serve as corroborative proof and could not be used to establish guilt independently.
The prosecution argued that the medical findings were essential in corroborating the victim’s statement and strengthening the case. They claimed that despite some witnesses retracting their statements, there was enough evidence to support the charge. However, the High Court found that the prosecution’s case lacked substantive evidence to confirm the occurrence of the crime.
The Court further noted that there were no allegations of penetrative sexual assault from either the victim or her mother, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. It stated, “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.” The Court also clarified that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, although admissible, could not serve as substantive evidence in the absence of supporting proof.
As a result, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. The ruling reinforced the principle that medical evidence, while important, must be supplemented by other reliable evidence to secure a conviction in sexual assault cases. The Court noted, “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.”
Advocate RM Daga represented the accused and advocated for his acquittal. Additional Public Prosecutor PP Pendke appeared for the State, while Advocate AY Sharma represented the complainant in the case.
This judgment serves as a reminder that convictions in severe criminal cases, particularly sexual assault, should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of all available evidence, with medical evidence playing a supporting, rather than leading, role. The ruling underscores the need for courts to carefully scrutinize the entire body of evidence to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially.
