Complainant Declining Medical Examination Despite Alleging Sexual Assault Can Weaken Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that refusal of the prosecutrix to undergo medical examination despite alleging serious sexual assault can weaken the prosecution's case.Justice Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea of the accused.The bench noted that in the FIR the prosecutirx had alleged threats and abusive conduct and did not disclose any allegation of sexual assault or rape. Such allegations appeared for the first time in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS.When the Court doubted such conduct, the prosecutrix submitted that the Investigating Officer incorrectly recorded her statement and discouraged her from alleging sexual assault to protect her dignity.However, given her educational background, the Court disbelieved such a submission and observed,“The prosecutrix, being a well educated woman preparing for Ph.D. entrance, as noted in the FIR, cannot be considered a gullible or uninformed individual, and her conscious refusal to undergo medical examination despite the nature of allegations, is a relevant factor in the investigation…her educational background suggests she was fully capable of asserting her position, had she so intended.”It added, "Furthermore, the refusal of the prosecutrix to undergo medical examination despite alleging serious sexual assault further weakens the prosecution's case. The CDR records relied upon by the IO indicate that it was the prosecutrix who had contacted the co-accused and not the other way around. This discrepancy contradicts the assertion that she received threatening calls on the night of the alleged incident."The Court also noted that the petitioner-accused and the prosecutrix's family were known to each other and thus, the dispute having arisen following a fallout between the two families over an agreement to sell, cannot be ruled out.As such, the Court granted pre-arrest bail on the accused furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000/- with one surety of the like amount.Appearance: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ajay k. Pipaniya, Mr. Turang Pandit, Mr. Harsh Tomar, Ms. Sanjana Nair, Ms. Janvi Narang and Ms. Anurupita Kaur, Adv for Petitioner; Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State with W/SI Kanika Jain, P.S.Bharat Nagar. Complainant is present through V/C.Case title: Arpit Mishra v. StateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 814Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1761/2025Click here to read judgment

Complainant Declining Medical Examination Despite Alleging Sexual Assault Can Weaken Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court

Kapil Dhyani

Tags