Medical Experts In Sexual Offences
I. Introduction
In cases of sexual offences, such as rape or sexual assault, medical experts play a critical role in:
Examining the victim and the accused
Documenting injuries, forensic signs, and biological evidence
Providing expert opinions during trial
Assisting courts in understanding the medical aspect of consent, resistance, penetration, and trauma
II. Legal Framework
Section 164-A of CrPC: Provides for medical examination of the victim in rape cases by a registered medical practitioner within 24 hours.
Section 53A of CrPC: Provides for medical examination of the accused in rape cases.
Indian Evidence Act, Section 45: Allows expert medical opinions to be admissible as evidence.
POCSO Act, 2012: Special provisions for medical examination of child victims in sexual offences.
III. Role of Medical Experts in Court
Establish presence or absence of injuries.
Collect semen, blood, hair, nail scrapings, etc., for DNA analysis.
Determine possibility of recent sexual activity.
Evaluate mental and physical condition of the victim.
Assist in ruling out false or fabricated claims.
⚖️ Key Case Laws Involving Medical Experts in Sexual Offences
1. Tukaram and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura Rape Case) (1979) 2 SCC 143
Facts: A minor tribal girl (Mathura) was allegedly raped in police custody. The medical report showed no visible injuries or signs of struggle.
Held: Supreme Court acquitted the accused, relying heavily on the absence of injuries and lack of resistance as proof of consent.
Significance:
Widely criticized.
Sparked legal reforms.
Led to amendment of rape laws in 1983 and recognition of custodial rape.
Showed how courts misused medical opinions in earlier judgments, necessitating change.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts: A minor girl was raped, and the medical report confirmed injury marks and hymenal rupture.
Held: The Court emphasized that medical evidence is only corroborative, and victim’s testimony alone can be sufficient for conviction if found trustworthy.
Significance:
Reinforced that lack of medical evidence doesn’t negate rape.
Promoted victim-centric approach.
Recognized psychological trauma as significant.
3. State of Karnataka v. Manjanna (2000) 3 SCC 501
Facts: Victim of rape was not medically examined because of police delay.
Held: The Court ruled that medical examination of a rape victim should be done immediately, even before FIR is filed.
Significance:
Made it mandatory for doctors to examine victims without waiting for police orders.
Recognized urgent role of medical experts in preserving evidence.
4. Rajinder @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 16 SCC 69
Facts: Accused challenged rape conviction on grounds of lack of medical evidence like semen or DNA.
Held: The Court upheld the conviction, stating that absence of semen does not negate sexual assault, especially when other circumstantial and testimonial evidence exists.
Significance:
Clarified that absence of biological evidence is not fatal.
Gave primacy to the testimony of the prosecutrix.
5. Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 643
Facts: The victim was subjected to the "two-finger test" to determine her sexual history.
Held: Supreme Court held that the two-finger test is unconstitutional, humiliating, and violative of the right to dignity and privacy under Article 21.
Significance:
Strongly condemned unscientific and invasive medical practices.
Issued guidelines against outdated methods in medical examination.
6. State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus (2005) 3 SCC 594
Facts: Medical evidence showed no external injuries; accused argued consent.
Held: Supreme Court clarified that presence of injuries is not essential in every rape case, especially if the victim is threatened or under duress.
Significance:
Strengthened the stance that lack of resistance ≠ consent.
Medical experts must assess trauma in psychological and physical terms.
7. Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 9 SCC 787
Facts: Victim of gang rape was examined late. Defence raised doubt due to lack of immediate medical evidence.
Held: Court stated delay in medical examination doesn't discredit the victim, especially in rural areas or where access to healthcare is limited.
Significance:
Recognized practical challenges in prompt examination.
Emphasized that human conduct and trauma vary and must be medically and legally appreciated accordingly.
🧾 Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Key Issue | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979) | Rape in custody, no injuries | Absence of injuries ≠ consent – criticized later |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) | Minor's rape | Victim's testimony sufficient; medical report corroborative |
| State of Karnataka v. Manjanna (2000) | Delay in medical exam | Doctors must examine victim promptly |
| Rajinder v. State of HP (2009) | No semen found | Absence of semen ≠ false allegation |
| Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013) | Two-finger test | Declared unconstitutional, violates dignity |
| State of U.P. v. Pappu (2005) | No injuries | Threat or fear can explain lack of physical marks |
| Om Prakash v. State of U.P. (2006) | Delay in exam | Delay does not make claim false |
🧠 Key Takeaways
Medical evidence is helpful, but not decisive—especially when the victim's testimony is consistent and credible.
Courts have moved from injury-based analysis to consent-based analysis.
Medical experts must avoid outdated practices like the two-finger test.
Prompt examination, proper evidence collection, and compassionate handling of victims are essential.
Judicial trend increasingly recognizes trauma-informed, survivor-centric justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments