Medical Non-Examination Of Accused Can't Create Doubts On Eye-Witnesses' Account Supported By Medical Evidence: Allahabad HC Upholds Rape Conviction

The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere non-examination of the accused medically after the incident cannot create clouds of doubts on the evidence of eye-witnesses well supported with medical evidence.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed thus as it upheld the conviction of the rape accused who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court coupled with a direction pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the victim.

The case in brief 

One Shrawan Kumar Maurya was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a one-year-old girl. He challenged the sentence and conviction in the High Court.

It was narrated in the written report that on March 19, 2006, at about 12:30 PM, the daughter of the complainant (aged about one year) was playing on the platform situated in front of his house.

The accused picked up her on the pretext of giving her toffee and took the victim in his thatched house and committed rape on her. 

The amicus appearing for the accused argued before the Court that the conduct of the family members of the child was unnatural and unbelievable because they did not take the injured girl to the hospital whose condition was serious instead they first went to the police station.

It was further argued that the convict was not medically examined as was mandatory under Section 53 and 54 of Cr.P.C. and this goes against the prosecution.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that the case rests on the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 who are the eye witnesses of the incident and the charge framed against the accused had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court also underscored that the medical evidence was in corroboration of the ocular account given by the eye witnesses.

Regarding the argument of the defence that not a single drop of blood was found at the spot where the rape was allegedly committed, the Court observed that the mere absence of blood on the place of incident where the alleged incident took place will not make the whole incident untruthful when the trust-worthy ocular evidence, as well as medical evidence, is there, about the incident.

Regarding the argument that the victim was not taken to the hospital, the Court remarked that generally in the cases where the injury has been received as a result of a crime, the person goes first to inform the police or lodge the FIR.

"So the conduct of the family members of the victim cannot be termed as unnatural, especially when they are of village and illiterate persons," the Court held.

Further, regarding medical non examination of the accused right after the incident, the Court observed thus:

"The mere nonexamination of the accused medically after the incident cannot create the clouds of doubts on the evidence of eye-witnesses well supported with medical evidence specially when the accused was arrested after two days of the incident. Further more in Section 53, 53A and Section 54 of Cr.P.C. related provisions were amended 18 and made effective on 23.03.2006, while this incident occurred on 19.03.2006."

Consequently, the Court held that the incident had been proved by the eye-witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.-2 supported with medical evidence beyond all reasonable doubt against the convict/appellant and that the trial court had committed no error in holding the accused guilty and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, coupled with a direction to give Rs.25,000/- to the victim girl as compensation.

With this, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Case title - Srawan Kumar Maurya v. State Of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2422 of 2008]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 312

Click Here To Read/Download Order