Confession to Doctor While in Police Custody is Inadmissible and Medical Evidence Prevails Over Oral Testimony

The Appellant, Amol Jayram Landge (aged 19), was convicted by the Special Judge, Hingoli, for kidnapping and repeatedly raping a 13-year-old victim (PW-11) under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The victim went missing on 24/10/2019 and was later recovered with the Appellant from a relative's house.

The trial court sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing a lack of medical evidence to prove penetration.

Simultaneously, the State appealed for an enhancement of the sentence to 20 years, citing post-2018/2019 amendments to the IPC and POCSO Act.

The court applied Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which renders confessions made in police custody inadmissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

Regarding the definition of "Sexual Assault," the court looked to Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which covers physical contact with sexual intent without penetration.

For sentencing, it noted the 2018 Amendment to Section 376(3) of the IPC and the 2019 Amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, both of which established a mandatory minimum of 20 years for the rape of a child under 16.

The High Court first ruled that the Appellant’s "admission" to the Medical Officer (PW-8) regarding sexual intercourse was a confession made during police custody and thus hit by the bar under Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

Reviewing the medical evidence, the court found that PW-7 (Medical Officer) explicitly stated the victim's hymen was intact and no signs of sexual intercourse or injuries were found.

Consequently, the court held that "penetration" (a prerequisite for Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO) was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

However, since the victim was found in the Appellant's bed and her testimony regarding physical contact was credible, the court determined the act fell under the definition of "Sexual Assault" under Section 7.

Since the charge of Section 6 failed, the State’s plea for enhancement to a 20-year minimum became redundant.

Instead, it convicted the Appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act (punishment for sexual assault) and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

The convictions under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC (kidnapping) were maintained as the victim's minor age rendered her consent irrelevant.

The State’s appeal for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.