[POCSO] Due to negligence by doctor in conducting medical examination, no evidence regarding sexual assault: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently bemoaned the negligence by a doctor in conducting medical examination of a 15-year-old sexual assault survivor leaving the prosecution with no material regarding the alleged act [Pradeep v. State of Karnataka]..Single-judge Justice HP Sandesh, therefore, granted bail to the rape accused while also directing the principal secretary of the Medical Department to issue a circular reiterating the duties of doctors who conduct medical examinations of sexual assault survivors. The Court said that doctors have to specifically state in their medical opinion whether or not a sexual act was committed."Inspite of within two days of the examination of the victim, the doctor has not opined whether she was subjected to sexual act or not. The very purpose of producing the victim before the Medical Officer for examination is not served on account of callous act of the Medical Officer, who was working in K.C.General Hospital, Bengaluru. As a result of the negligence on the part of the Doctor, there is no material regarding heinous act of the petitioner," the Court said..It noted that in the present case, despite the presence of a specific column in the medical certificate to indicate the doctor's opinion on whether the victim had been subjected to a sexual act, the doctor did not record her finding.Terming it as negligence, the Court noted that the purpose of subjecting the victim girl for medical examination had been defeated. .The Court was hearing the bail plea of one Pradeep accused of taking away the survivor who was 15 years old and later committing sexual assault on her after he promised to marry her. He then allegedly threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. In her statement before the Magistrate, the victim said that the petitioner and she were in love and did not disclose any sexual offence committed by him. .The doctor who examined the victim opined that the hymen of the victim was not intact, however, she did not record any opinion on whether the victim was subjected to a sexual act. Noting that there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioner and a lack of a medical opinion, the Court granted bail to the petitioner-accused on a personal bond of ₹2 lakh, ordered him to not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court or tamper with prosecution witnesses, and to appear before the trial court for all hearings. .Further, the registry of the High Court was directed to communicate the order to the principal secretary for Medical Department, and to issue appropriate directions to the concerned competent medical officers to give opinion as observed in the order..Advocate Jagadeesha H represented the petitioner while High Court Government Pleader VS Vinayaka represented the State of Karnataka. .[Read Order]