Medical evidence cannot be sole basis for conviction in sexual assault cases: Bombay High Court

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that medical evidence cannot be treated as substantial evidence in sexual assault cases when there is no other strong evidence to support the charge. [Pradeep Gulabrao Choudhari v State of Maharashtra].Justice GA Sanap held that while medical evidence can be used as corroborative evidence, it should not be considered the primary evidence in establishing guilt.Therefore, the Court set aside the 20-year prison sentence imposed by a lower court on a Nagpur man accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl.Justice GA Sanap stated that the trial court had wrongly relied on the medical evidence as the primary basis for the 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... 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 observed..The incident in question occurred on January 5, 2022 when the victim was visiting her uncle’s home in Nagpur. The petitioner, the landlord of the property, allegedly lured the girl to a secluded area and assaulted her. After 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 Additional Sessions Judge 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.During the appeal, the defense argued that key witnesses including the victim, her mother and her maternal aunt had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. They contended that medical evidence could not be considered as direct proof of the crime but only as corroborative. The prosecution argued that the medical findings were crucial in supporting the charge and the witnesses did not totally deny the incident..The Court observed that that there were no allegations of penetrative sexual assault against the man neither by the victim nor her mother. "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," the court said. It further clarified the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by the Magistrate cannot be considered as substantive evidence to form the basis of the conviction..Hence, it concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant'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 while acquitting the accused..Advocate RM Daga appeared for the accused.Additional Public Prosecutor PP Pendke appeared for State.Advocate AY Sharma appeared for the complainant. .[Read Order]