Medical Examination Of Accused Persons
๐ 1. What Is Medical Examination of Accused?
Medical examination of an accused refers to the physical or clinical assessment of the person arrested or charged with a crime โ to establish relevant facts such as:
Evidence of injury (caused or received),
Evidence of sexual activity,
Alcohol or drug intoxication,
Mental or physical condition,
Age determination,
Collection of DNA, semen, blood, etc.
๐ 2. Legal Provisions
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 53 CrPC | Examination of the accused by a medical practitioner at the request of a police officer (not below the rank of Sub-Inspector), if such examination is necessary for investigation. |
| Section 53A CrPC | Special provision for medical examination in cases of rape. |
| Section 54 CrPC | When the accused alleges torture or maltreatment during custody, they may request a medical examination. |
| Section 197 IPC | Protection of government officials from prosecution unless sanctioned, which may be relevant in custodial medical cases. |
๐ฏ 3. Purpose of Medical Examination
To link the accused to the crime (e.g., DNA in sexual assault).
To verify injuries, age, or mental condition.
To refute false claims (e.g., false allegations of torture).
To safeguard human rights (especially in custodial settings).
๐ก๏ธ 4. Safeguards and Rights
Medical examination must be conducted by a registered medical practitioner.
Female accused must be examined by or under the supervision of a female doctor.
It must not amount to cruelty or degrading treatment.
It must comply with Article 20(3) โ protection against self-incrimination (interpreted narrowly by courts).
๐งโโ๏ธ 5. Case Law Analysis (More Than 5 Cases)
๐น Case 1: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Whether narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain mapping are unconstitutional.
Held:
These techniques violate Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) unless done with consent. However, medical examination under Section 53 CrPC does not violate Article 20(3) because it relates to physical evidence (e.g., blood, semen).
Significance:
Clarified that medical examination is permissible and constitutional, if properly conducted.
๐น Case 2: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Whether taking blood, fingerprints, handwriting samples, etc., amounts to self-incrimination.
Held:
Physical evidence like fingerprints, blood samples, etc., is not testimonial in nature and hence does not violate Article 20(3).
Significance:
Paved the way for lawful medical and forensic examination of accused persons.
๐น Case 3: Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979) โ Mathura Rape Case
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Role of medical evidence in establishing rape.
Facts:
Victim alleged rape in police custody. Accused police officers were acquitted due to lack of injuries and โhabitual intercourseโ remarks.
Held:
The court controversially relied on medical findings to disbelieve the victim, but the case led to massive public outrage.
Significance:
Resulted in amendments to rape laws and the insertion of Section 53A CrPC, to ensure prompt medical examination of rape accused.
๐น Case 4: Neeraj Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015)
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: Right of accused to demand medical examination under Section 54 CrPC.
Held:
Accused has a right to request a medical examination to prove custodial torture. Failure to conduct examination can weaken the prosecutionโs case.
Significance:
Ensures that medical examination is a protection for the accused, not just a tool for the police.
๐น Case 5: Ram Sunder v. State of U.P. (1992)
Court: Allahabad High Court
Issue: Whether refusal of medical examination violates rights.
Held:
If the accused demands medical examination and the request is denied without reason, it may amount to violation of rights, especially in custodial torture cases.
Significance:
Reinforces Section 54 CrPC as a safeguard, not a mere formality.
๐น Case 6: Raja @ Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005)
Court: Madras High Court
Issue: Use of DNA evidence obtained through medical examination.
Held:
DNA samples taken during medical examination held valid and significant in proving rape and murder.
Significance:
DNA-based medical examination is a scientific, admissible, and essential form of evidence.
๐น Case 7: Anuj Sharma v. State (2022)
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: Timeliness and documentation of medical examination in sexual assault cases.
Held:
Medical examination must be conducted within 24 hours and findings must be meticulously documented, including injuries, semen traces, blood samples, etc.
Significance:
Timely medical exam is critical for both investigation and fair trial.
๐ 6. Summary Table
| Case Name | Legal Issue | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Selvi v. Karnataka | Narco and medical exams | Medical exams allowed; narco requires consent |
| Kathi Kalu Oghad | Self-incrimination | Physical evidence not testimonial |
| Mathura Rape Case | Use of medical evidence | Led to major legal reforms |
| Neeraj Sharma v. State | Accused's right to exam | Medical exam protects accused from torture |
| Ram Sunder v. State | Denial of exam | Can lead to violation of fair trial rights |
| Raja v. State | DNA sample validity | DNA evidence from exams is admissible |
| Anuj Sharma v. State | Timing of exam | Must be done within 24 hours in sexual offences |
โ 7. Conclusion
The medical examination of accused persons is a vital component of criminal investigation in India. It helps in:
Corroborating prosecution or defense evidence,
Preventing custodial torture,
Protecting the rights of both the accused and the victim,
Providing scientific evidence for conviction or acquittal.
Courts have consistently held that such examinations are constitutional, necessary, and must be conducted with fairness, dignity, and timeliness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments