Doctor’s conviction for outraging patient’s modesty upheld; Gauhati High Court reduces sentence to ₹5,000 fine

On 5 September 2009, the victim, referred to as “X”, visited Lily Medical Hall to consult the petitioner, a doctor, regarding irregular menstruation.

The prosecution alleged that during the examination in the petitioner’s chamber, he unbuttoned or caused her blouse to be unhooked, groped and squeezed her breasts, touched her private parts, and bit her lips despite her protest; she raised an alarm and was taken out of the chamber by her companions.

The victim thereafter informed her brother, “Y”, who lodged the FIR on the same day, resulting in Morigaon P.S. Case No.155/2009 and a charge-sheet under Section 354 IPC.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon convicted the petitioner under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 on 17 August 2013. The Sessions Judge, Morigaon dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the conviction on 3 March 2014.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the conviction principally on the grounds of contradictions in the evidence, reliance on the victim’s testimony, and non-examination of the Investigating Officer, certain medical officers, and other witnesses.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 354 IPC were legally or properly sustainable despite alleged contradictions in the victim’s and other witnesses’ statements?

2. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, medical officers, and the woman police constable accompanying the victim prejudiced the petitioner’s defence?

3. Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in relying upon statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC as substantive evidence?

4. Whether the acts attributed to the petitioner constituted use of criminal force with intent to outrage the victim’s modesty under Section 354 IPC, notwithstanding his assertion that the physical contact was part of a medical examination?

The Court applied Section 354 IPC, which criminalises assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intention or knowledge that her modesty will be outraged.

It applied the principle that, in offences involving sexual assault or outraging modesty, the consistent and credible testimony of the prosecutrix can, by itself, sustain a conviction and does not require corroboration by eyewitnesses or medical evidence.

The Court also recognised that statements under Section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence and that the trial and appellate courts erred in treating such statements as evidence, although the error did not invalidate the conviction where the witnesses’ depositions independently supported the prosecution.

Sections 145 of the Evidence Act and 162 CrPC were applied concerning the proof of contradictions through cross-examination.

The Court further considered the revisional scope under Sections 397/407 CrPC, under which interference is warranted for illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error, rather than for re-appreciation of minor discrepancies.

The Court held that the victim’s testimony was consistent on the material particulars: the petitioner had groped her breasts, touched her private parts, and bitten her lips during a purported medical examination.

Her evidence was supported by her brother’s testimony, the evidence of the person who arranged her appointment, and evidence establishing her presence with the petitioner in the private chamber.

The alleged discrepancies regarding when and where the victim informed her brother were considered minor and immaterial, particularly because the incident occurred several months before the witnesses testified.

The petitioner’s medical-examination defence was rejected as implausible.

While a doctor may examine the abdomen or other relevant parts of a patient, squeezing or groping the breasts and biting the patient’s lips could not reasonably be treated as routine examination for menstrual irregularities or a pregnancy test.

The Court found that the acts, viewed from the victim’s perspective and in their factual context, demonstrated that her modesty had been outraged.

Although the courts below improperly discussed the witnesses’ Section 161 CrPC statements as evidence, the conviction was not based solely on those statements; the substantive depositions and surrounding circumstances were sufficient.

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer, medical officers, and another witness caused no prejudice because no material contradiction requiring proof through those witnesses had been elicited in cross-examination, and medical evidence was not indispensable for a Section 354 offence.

However, considering that the petitioner was 71 years old and that the incident pre-dated the 2013 amendment, the Court modified the sentence from imprisonment and a ₹10,000 fine to a fine of ₹5,000 only, with default rigorous imprisonment for two months.

The fine was directed to be deposited before the trial court and transferred to the DLSA, Morigaon, for inclusion in the victim compensation scheme.