Supreme Court Acquits The Doctor In Rape Case and Quashes the Conviction

Supreme Court Quashes Section 376 Conviction and acquits Doctor as victim turns hostile and medical evidence fails in Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, citing that the that conviction cannot rest on an FIR or flawed FSL reports when the victim and material witnesses turn hostile.

Case Background: The case is stemmed from when the appellant, who is a medical practitioner from Gujarat, was accused of committing rape on a patient who visited his clinic for stomach pain in May 2001. As per the contents of the FIR, the appellant/doctor allegedly took the victim into an operation room under the guise of an examination and forcibly committed intercourse.

Following the trial, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(d) of the IPC, awarding six years of rigorous imprisonment. This sentence was later enhanced to ten years by the Gujarat High Court upon an appeal by the State.

However, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case crumbled during the trial as both the victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) turned hostile, denying the allegations of sexual assault. Furthermore, the Apex Court found that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s narrative, and the recovery of physical evidence was procedurally compromised.

This Supreme Court’s decision centered on the evidentiary requirements for sustaining a conviction when primary witnesses (victim) recant/withdraw from their statements:

Citing the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani, 2003 (Click to download), the Apex Court reiterated that while a hostile witness's testimony is not rejected en bloc, nevertheless, the courts below must be "slow to act" on such testimony. A witness who makes different statements at different times demonstrates a lack of regard for the truth, requiring substantial corroboration that was absent in the present case.

The Apex Court further frawned upon the High Court of Gujrat for presuming that the witnesses were "won over" by the appellant simply because they turned hostile. As such it is not open for a court to make such an assumption in the absence of evidence showing the witnesses were influenced or coerced.

On the "FIR as Non-Substantive Evidence" the Apex Court emphasized that an FIR is not substantive evidence, and the allegations leveled in an FIR must be proved through cogent evidence during the trial; the testimony of an Investigating Officer regarding the contents of an FIR cannot substitute for the failed testimony of the witnesses themselves.

While noting that the medical examination of the victim (PW-7) revealed no signs of recent physical intercourse, no internal injuries, and no presence of semen in the vagina, the Apex Court held that such medical findings severely undermined the prosecution's version of a forced encounter.

The Apex Court also took note of the dim view of the prosecution's failure to examine three independent witnesses who were present at the clinic at the time of the alleged occurrence, further weakening the case. So also, the FSL report since the panch witnesses for the recovery of clothes admitted to signing pre-prepared papers at the police's instance, and the witnesses did not know the contents of the panchnamas the Supreme Court rejected the FSL report (which noted 'B' group semen stains) and observed that the High Court erred in relying on the recovery of the clothes.

The Supreme Court thus held that the conviction cannot rest on an FIR or flawed FSL and emphasized that courts cannot presume a witness was "won over" without evidence and underscored the necessity of corroborating medical testimony in sexual assault cases, and set aside the conviction.

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL AND JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI.