Non-Examination of Medical Witness and Failure to Legally Prove Medical Report Vitiates Conviction for Attempted Rape.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Keonjhar, on 21.08.2006 for attempt to commit rape under Section 376 r/w 511 of the IPC, while being acquitted of charges under the SC & ST (POA) Act

The prosecution alleged that on 04.01.2000, the appellant entered the victim’s house, threw her on the floor, and attempted to pull her saree while pressing her mouth to prevent her from shouting

The victim (P.W.1) resisted, and villagers (P.Ws 2-6) arrived after hearing her cries, prompting the accused to flee

The appellant challenged the conviction via this appeal, noting that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and the medical examiner were never examined during the trial

1. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the medical doctor caused material prejudice to the accused

2. Whether the unproven medical report (Ext.3) could be relied upon as substantive evidence for conviction

3. Whether the prosecution established the specific intention for an "attempt to rape" under Section 376/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt

Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC regarding the attempt to commit rape

The evidentiary standard that suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt

The principle from L.I.C. of India & Anr. v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010), which mandates that mere exhibition of a document does not prove its truth—contents must be proved per the Evidence Act

The doctrine from Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023), holding that if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted

The non-examination of the I.O. deprived the defence of the right to confront testimony with previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The medical report (Ext.3) was never legally "proved" as the authoring doctor was not called as a witness; thus, the report lacked evidentiary value

The trial court erred in inferring an "intention to rape" solely from the act of pulling a saree without corroborative medical evidence of injury or violent sexual assault

These deficiencies, combined with the lack of seized material like torn clothing, created a reasonable doubt that necessitated the benefit of the doubt being given to the appellant

The Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2006, allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant