Refusal Of Alleged Rape Victim To Allow Medical Examination Raises Negative Inference Against Her : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that adverse inference can be drawn against a woman, who is alleged to be a victim in a rape case, if she refuses medical examination.

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that non- allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them," the Court observed, referring to Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was deciding an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a judgment of the High Court which acquitted the accused in a rape case.

The FIR in the case was lodged by the father of the alleged victim in 2007. It was alleged that the accused came to their house, when the parents were away, and committed forceful sexual intercourse with their daughter.

The prosecutrix was medically examined at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, where she was found to be of unsound mind as she did not cooperate in her medical examination. As the factum of sexual intercourse could not be ascertained, the prosecutrix was further referred to the RPMC Hospital at Tanda (Dharamshala) for the opinion of their Gynecologist and Psychiatrist. However, the father of the prosecutrix did not allow for any medical examination to happen.

Though the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, the High Court reversed the acquittal .

In this case, the mother of the girl turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. The father also made evasive statements. The Court also noted that the prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events. 

The High Court, while discussing the prosecutrix's testimony, came to the invariable conclusion that she was not mentally unsound – given that she was able to clearly comprehend the question and answer during the cross-examination.

The Court also cited the limited jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal.

Case : State of Himachal Pradesh v Rajesh Kumar

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Click here to read the judgment