Click the Play button to listen to article

The Patna HC has held that the absence of injuries on the body of an alleged rape victim does not ipso facto establish that rape was not committed, as rape is a legal finding and not a medical one. The Court refused to quash a cognizance order against four accused persons in a case involving the alleged gang rape of a 12-year-old girl with hearing and speech disabilities.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated February 2, 2019, by which the Special Judge, Jehanabad, had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 376D/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The case arose from an FIR lodged by a physical education teacher posted at a middle school in Kako, Jehanabad. She alleged that on January 15, 2017, her minor daughter, who was studying in Class VI at the same school, was gang-raped by the accused persons on the school roof. She further alleged that blood was found coming from the child's private parts and that the accused had previously outraged her modesty.

Following investigation, the police submitted a closure report against the four named accused. However, the Special Judge took cognizance of the offences after considering the materials on record, including the case diary, protest petitions, the informant's statement under Section 164 CrPC, the medical report and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

Challenging the cognizance order, the petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated due to strained relations with the informant. They submitted that the bloodstains found on the victim's clothing were attributable to her menstrual cycle, as also opined by the medical board.

They further contended that no injuries had been found on or around the victim's private parts or elsewhere on her body to suggest gang rape. The petitioners also argued that the Magistrate had taken a different view from the police closure report without assigning adequate reasons. Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed:

“This Court is of considered view that none finding of injury as submitted aforesaid by learned counsel does not lead to conclusion ipso facto that rape was not committed upon as rape is a legal finding not a medical one.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ravi @ Nehru, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 534. The Bench further held that whether the bloodstains on the victim's clothing were caused by menstruation or the alleged sexual assault was a disputed question of fact that could be determined only during trial.

The Court also noted that the matter had reached the Human Rights Commission, with allegations concerning the role of senior police officers in the destruction or tampering of evidence. It further took note of the informant's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC supporting the allegations.

On the challenge to the cognizance order, the High Court observed that a jurisdictional Magistrate was legally empowered to take a view different from the police closure report.

Finding that the cognizance order was well-reasoned and based on the materials available on record, the Court declined to interfere with the order dated February 2, 2019.

Appearance:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rajeev Ranjan

For the Informant: Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP

Tags: