'Impossible To Anaesthetise Woman Against Her Will': Allahabad HC Grants Bail In Rape Case Citing Modi's 'Medical Jurisprudence'

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal noted that as per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, it is impossible to anaesthetise a woman against her will while she is awake.

The Court added that it is also impossible for an inexperienced man to anaesthetise even a sleeping person without disturbance and substitute artificial sleep for natural sleep.

"Hence the story often published in the lay press of a woman having been rendered suddenly unconscious by a handkerchief soaked in chloroform held over her face and then raped is not to be believed," the Court quoted from the textbook.

Relying on the textbook, the Court further noted that women of 'excitable' and 'emotional' temperament might hallucinate or get dreams of having been raped during the stage of anaesthesia and that such acquisitions cannot be believed.

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged that the bail applicant entered into a fake marriage with the informant in 2022 and hid the fact that he already had two children from the first marriage. It was alleged that the case under Section 366 IPC [Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc] was closed against the appellant based on the statements made by the informant.

It was the primary allegation against the accused applicant that he rendered informant-woman intoxicated and thereafter, her statement had been recorded by the Magistrate. It was also alleged that the applicant threatened the informant with releasing her videos, which he had recorded.

Applying for bail before the High Court, the applicant argued that the FIR was registered at a delayed stage based on the informant's statement.

It was also argued that a Magistrate, being an uninterested party to the case, would never record the statement of an intoxicated person. It was further contended that there was no medical report to corroborate any statement given by the prosecution. And that the applicant had no criminal history except the two FIRs filed by the same informant.

Per contra, the prosecution contended that the applicant had used a chloroform handkerchief to make the informant unconscious.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that by “Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," imprisonment is an exception to the rule of bail. The Court held that there was no threat of the accused fleeing the justice system and no corroborative evidence to support the allegations made to keep the applicant in jail.

Against this backdrop, while granting bail to the accused, Justice Krishan Pahal held

“A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable.”

Case Title: Ravindra Singh Rathaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 471 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24630 of 2024]