Read Order: Pradeep vs. State of Karnataka

Pankaj Bajpai

Bengaluru, March 2, 2022: Finding that there were no prima-facie materials subjecting the victim for sexual act and the Doctor had also not opined with regard to whether she was subjected to sexual act or not, the Karnataka High Court has enlarged the accused on bail, who was booked for offences of raping a minor girl.  

Observing that very purpose of subjecting the victim girl for medical examination is defeated, the Single Judge H.P Sandesh directed the Principal Secretary for Medical Department to issue circular to the concerned department reiterating the duties of the Doctors, who conduct the medical examination to give report, whether victims are subjected to sexual act or not in order to bring the culprits within the ambit of law. 

Going by the background of the case, the victim, who is aged about 15 years, was missing and hence, the mother had lodged the complaint with the Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station. In the missing complaint, by suspecting the role of Pradeep (petitioner), the specific allegation is made against him that he had taken the victim girl. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case and filed the charge-sheet by invoking the offence punishable u/s 366, 376 and 506 of IPC and sections 5(L) and 6 of POCSO Act, wherein the specific allegation is made against the petitioner that he entered inside the house of victim when no one was there, held her and said that he would marry her and subjected her for sexual act as against her wish and also caused life threat not to disclose the same to any other persons.

During the course of investigation, the Medical Officer gave opinion that hymen is not intact but not given any opinion, whether she was subjected to sexual act or not. Hence, present petition seeking regular bail. 

After considering the submissions, Justice Sandesh noted from the perusal of Section 164 statement, that the victim girl has not stated anything, whether she was subjected to sexual act or not. 

No doubt, the doctor, who examined the victim girl, has stated that the hymen is not intact but no provisional opinion is given that whether she was subjected to sexual act or not, added the Single Judge. 

Justice Sandesh found that according to the prosecution, the victim was subjected to sexual act on December 5, 2020 and the doctor has examined the victim on December 7, 2020, inspite of within two days of the examination of the victim, the doctor has not opined whether she was subjected to sexual act or not. 

The very purpose of producing the victim before the Medical Officer for examination is not served on account of callous act of the Medical Officer, who was working in K.C. General Hospital, Bengaluru, and as a result of the negligence on the part of the Doctor, there is no material regarding the heinous act of the petitioner, added the Single Judge. 

The High Court also noted that the prosecution is unable to find out the truth, when there is a specific column in the Certificate to give finding and no such finding is given, which is nothing but negligence on the part of the Doctor, who conducted the medical examination.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment