Rape is a crime, not medical diagnosis: Delhi court
text_fields
New Delhi: A Delhi court has ruled that rape is a crime in legal terms and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim.
Additional Sessions Judge Mahesh Chander Gupta made the observation last week while acquitting a man accused of sexual assault. Ajay was facing trial for the alleged rape of a 22-year-old woman three years ago.
The court cited the opinion expressed by Dr. Jaising P. Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, a highly recommended book on the subject of medical jurisprudence which has been the key reference tool for medical and legal professionals.
According to police, Ajay kidnapped the young woman and took her to different places like Jaipur, Kashmir, Dehradun, Punjab, Bangalore and Varanasi and had established physical relations with her without her consent from Feb 9, 2011, to Mar 31, 2011.
From the evidence collected during medical and gynecological examination, it was proved that the accused had established physical relations with the woman. However, it was observed that the woman while testifying as prosecution witness in the case had confirmed that sexual relationship with the accused was established with her consent.
"On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Ajay," the court said.
The court said the hostility of the victim has knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to support its case.
"There is nothing on record to indicate that on Feb 9, 2011, at about 11.30 a.m. she was kidnapped from Balmiki Chowk, Mangolpuri, Delhi, by accused Ajay or that accused Ajay from Feb 9, 2011, to March 31, 2011, at different places i.e. Kashmir, Dehradun, Punjab, Bangalore, Varanasi etc. in India had established physical relations with her without her consent," the court said.
The court turned down the submission of the public prosecutor that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and consistent and the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out are minor and do not affect the credibility of the witnesses.
