Doctor Cannot Outrage Woman's Modesty Under Garb Of Medical Check-Up: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 354 IPC

"A doctor can touch the body of a patient while examining the patient clinically but the doctor cannot outrage the modesty of woman during medical check-up." Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling, held that while a doctor has the liberty to touch a patient's body for clinical examination, they cannot use it as a shield to outrage a woman's modesty.

A single-judge bench of Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund upheld the conviction of a medical practitioner under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that groping a patient's breasts and biting her lips cannot be justified as a routine gynecological examination.

The case stems from an incident in September 2009 when the victim visited the petitioner's pharmacy to consult him regarding irregular menstrual periods. The petitioner allegedly took the victim into his private chamber, unbuttoned her blouse, inappropriately groped her breasts, and bit her lips despite her protests. Both the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, had previously convicted the petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC, prompting the present criminal revision petition before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts convicting the petitioner suffered from any illegality or impropriety. The court was also called upon to determine if the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and certain medical witnesses prejudiced the defence, and whether minor contradictions in the victim's testimony vitiated the prosecution's case.

Scope Of Revisional Jurisdiction

At the outset, the court noted that under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), its revisional jurisdiction is limited to assessing the propriety and legality of the judgment. The bench clarified that it is not required to delve into the intricate nitty-gritties of the evidence unless there is a glaring error. The court found that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts did not warrant interference based merely on minor contradictions highlighted by the defence.

Act Cannot Be Termed A Routine Medical Examination

Addressing the petitioner's defence that touching the breasts was part of a routine pregnancy or gynecological test, the court dismissed the argument as completely absurd. The bench noted that the victim specifically sought consultation for irregular menstrual periods, which is an internal problem that did not require her to unhook her blouse. The court emphasized that even for a pregnancy test, inappropriately groping the breasts and biting a patient's lips is wholly unjustified.

"This conduct of the petitioner cannot be considered to be a routine examination of a gynecologist to cure irregular menstrual period," the bench observed.

Modesty Is Writ Large On A Woman's Body

The court reiterated established legal principles regarding Section 354 of the IPC, emphasizing that the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The bench agreed with the trial court's observation that the modesty of a woman is an inherent trait. The court noted that whoever uses criminal force with the intent to outrage this modesty commits a grave offence, regardless of the victim's age or mental state.

"Modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or asleep, the woman possesses modesty capable of being outraged."

Victim's Testimony Sufficient For Conviction

The bench firmly rejected the argument that the hostility of the victim's friends or minor discrepancies in witness statements undermined the prosecution's case. The court observed that offences of sexual assault typically occur in strict privacy, making independent eyewitnesses rare. The court found the victim to be a sterling witness whose consistent testimony was adequately corroborated by her brother and her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.

Non-Examination Of Medical Officer Not Fatal

Dismissing the defence's contention regarding the non-examination of medical officers, the court held that a doctor's opinion is not a prerequisite to prove that a victim's modesty has been outraged. The court reasoned that in offences under Section 354 of the IPC, visible physical injuries are not always expected, and the victim is the best person to describe the impact of the assault on her own psyche.

"It is the victim who feels that her modesty has been outraged by such an act. A doctor's opinion is not required to prove that a victim's modesty has been outraged, nor is a doctor's opinion sine qua non to prove that a victim's modesty has been outraged."

The High Court ultimately upheld the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC, finding no illegality in the lower courts' judgments. However, considering that the incident occurred before the stringent 2013 criminal law amendments and taking into account the petitioner's advanced age of 71 years, the court modified the sentence. The substantive sentence of imprisonment was scaled down to a fine of Rs. 5,000, which is to be transferred to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Morigaon, to form part of the victim compensation scheme.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026