-
by Admin
07 April 2026 6:31 PM
When Medical Evidence Contradicts Allegations Of Sexual Assault, Courts Must Exercise Caution Before Conviction: In a detailed ruling the Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a sexual assault case under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 451 and 506 IPC. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made a telling observation on the role of medical evidence in rape prosecutions by stating,
“The absence of any injuries on the prosecutrix, internal or external, and the lack of any signs of resistance, combined with contradictions in testimony, renders the prosecution version untrustworthy.”
The High Court underscored that medical evidence is not a mere formality but an important corroborative tool, especially when the prosecution's narrative shows internal inconsistencies.
The State had appealed against the acquittal granted by the trial court to Jawahar Singh, accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred inside the prosecutrix’s home during the daytime. Despite a prompt medical examination after the alleged incident, no injuries were found on the prosecutrix, nor were there any signs of physical struggle. The trial court had acquitted the accused after finding the prosecutrix’s statements inconsistent and unsupported by medical and other evidence. The State contested the judgment, arguing that medical evidence is not always determinative in cases of sexual assault.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna critically examined the medical evidence in the case and rejected the argument that absence of injuries was immaterial. The Court observed,
“While it is settled law that absence of injuries may not always be conclusive in cases of sexual assault, when such absence is coupled with contradictory testimonies, it significantly weakens the prosecution’s case.” [Para 16]
Referring to the record, the Court pointed out,
“The MLC of the prosecutrix revealed no external or internal injuries to suggest any struggle or resistance, despite her claim of forcible assault. Equally important, the MLC of the accused showed no injury, contrary to the claim that she had assaulted him with a wooden patla while defending herself.” [Paras 16, 29]
The Court was particularly concerned with the internal contradiction between the medical reports and the prosecutrix’s shifting versions of events. Justice Bansal Krishna remarked,
“The prosecutrix made allegations of being pushed, forcibly thrown on a cot, of being pressed and manhandled, yet the complete absence of any physical marks of resistance or injury is a glaring inconsistency that cannot be ignored.” [Para 26]
The judgment further reflected on the timing of the medical examination:
“This was not a case of delayed examination that could have allowed injuries to heal. The complaint was made within hours of the alleged incident, yet the medical evidence was completely silent on any trauma, which raises serious questions on the occurrence of the alleged incident.” [Para 16]
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that in cases where medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecutrix’s claims and there are material contradictions in her testimony, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. The Court observed,
“The very foundation of the prosecution’s case is rendered fragile when medical reports directly contradict allegations of force and assault. A conviction cannot rest on such infirm material.” [Para 34]
By dismissing the appeal, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the principle that in criminal trials, convictions must rest on reliable, cogent, and corroborated evidence. Justice Bansal Krishna summed up the reasoning succinctly,
“Sterling testimony must be matched by reliable corroborative material, especially where the account is factually improbable and medically unsubstantiated.” [Para 43]
Date of Decision: 18th July 2025
