The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that medical evidence alone cannot be regarded as substantial proof in sexual assault cases, especially in the absence of other compelling evidence to substantiate the charge.

The bench headed by Justice G.A. Sanap emphasized that medical evidence serves as corroborative proof and should not be treated as the primary basis for establishing guilt. 

Accordingly, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court overturned a 20-year prison sentence handed down by a lower court to a Nagpur man accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl. 

Justice Sanap observed that the trial court erred by relying predominantly on medical evidence to convict the accused.

"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.

Case Brief:

The said incident happened back 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, resulting in 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, sentencing him to 20 years in prison.

During the appeal, the defense argued that key witnesses, including the victim, her mother, and maternal aunt, had turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's case. They contended that medical evidence should not be treated as direct proof of the crime but only as corroborative.

The prosecution, however, maintained that the medical findings were vital in supporting the charge, emphasizing that the witnesses did not completely deny the incident.

The Court observed that neither the victim nor her mother had made allegations of penetrative sexual assault against the accused.

"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.

The Court further clarified that the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by the Magistrate could not be treated as substantive evidence to form the basis of the conviction.

As a result, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.