[S. 53A CrPC] Failure To Medically Examine Rape Accused Immediately After Arrest Raises Doubts On Manner Of Investigation: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that the failure of the investigating officer to have a rape accused medically examined by a doctor as per Section 53A CrPC, immediately after the arrest, casts a serious doubt on the investigation and the prosecution's case.

The division bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar was considering an appeal against the appellant's conviction under Section 3 of POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault and Section 376 of IPC for rape by the Special Trial Court. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 13.04.2022 and the appellant was arrested on the same day.

The appellant contended that the case against him was false and motivated due a land dispute between him and the victim's family. He further contended that the medical report, deposition of witnesses and victim's statements revealed that a false case was lodged against him.

The High Court examined the report by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) which contained description of blood and semen found on the victim's and appellant's clothes. The report revealed that the blood group from the blood and semen found on the victim's clothes was different from the blood mixed semen found on the appellant's clothes.

The Court noted that the clothes received by the laboratory was not the same as clothes seized by the investigating officer. It also noted that the clothes of the victim and appellant were not conserved properly, which according to the Court's view casted a serious doubt on prosecution's case

The Court then referred to Section 53A CrPC which provides for examination of persons accused of rape, by medical practitioner if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such examination would be useful to gather evidence of the crime. The Court remarked that the appellant was arrested immediately after the occurrence, but he was not medically examined as per Section 53A Cr.PC.

It thus stated “There was no reason whatsoever for not medically examining him which would have only added weight to the evidence in favour of the prosecution. That not having been done, we agree, the prosecution would not be thrown out on that score alone, but it definitely castes a serious doubt on the investigation having been carried out in a proper manner.” The Court opined that this also proved to be a fatal lacuna on the prosecution's case.

The Court further assessed the report of the Medical Board, which indicated that the victim had not suffered any injuries. It noted “Even her private parts were completely unaffected. The old torn hymen had already healed. The Medical Board was absolutely specific that there was no sign of any recent sexual intercourse with the victim.”

It found other flaws in the prosecution's story. It stated the victim's deposition was not similar to her written statement in the FIR. The grandmother's deposition was damaging as she stated that there was long pending litigation with the appellant, which was also known to the victim. The Investigating Officer did not find any mark of violence at the scene of occurrence even though it had an earthen floor and did not enquire about the land dispute between the appellant and the victim's family.

Considering the facts of the case, the High Court thus gave the appellant a benefit of doubt. It reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant.

Case Title: Ajeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (CR. APP (DB) No.945 of 2023)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 56

Click Here To Read/Download Order