In Case Of A Gang Rape, Medical Corroboration Not An Absolute Necessity: MP HC Denies Bail Despite The Fact That Victim Married Accused [Read Order]

It was also submitted that the prosecutrix also got married to the appellant and for which an affidavit sworn by her was filed with the bail application. There is no likelihood of his absconding and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the appellant be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, the Panel lawyer opposed the bail application and prayed for rejection of the appeal on the ground that it is a matter of gang rape and in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix had clearly stated against the appellant.

Court's Order

Denying the benefit of bail to accused-appelant, the Court remarked,

"After hearing counsel for both the parties and the entire material available in the PDF format and the fact that it is a case of gang rape and delay in lodging the FIR in rape cases is no ground to discard entire prosecution case and it is also not necessary that medically it should be corroborated and looking to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and other material available in PDF form and considering the entire material on merit, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case in which the appellant- Harishchandra may be released on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed under Section 14-A of (POA) Act"

Hence, the appeal was thereby dismissed.

It may be noted that are a catena of precedents of courts holding the accused guilty for gang-rape, despite the absence of medical evidence.

In the case of Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635, the opinion of the doctor was that no rape appeared to have committed because of the absence of rupture of hymen and injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix, however, the Apex Court took the view that the medical opinion cannot throw overboard an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix.

It may be noted that in B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 122 the Apex Court had observed that,

"The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix, does not lead to any inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. Though the report of the gynaecologist pertaining to the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted."

Last year, the Karnataka High Court while setting aside an acquittal order and convicting a 47-year old man on charges of raping a minor girl had aid "the very evidence of victim inspires confidence of the Court that accused subjected her to sexual act and even in the absence of medical evidence this court can come to the conclusion that victim was subjected to sexual assault."