Proof of Medical Examination Records Under Section 32(2) When Examining Doctor Is Unavailable

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 506 Part II of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

The prosecution alleged that on 01.02.2014 and 03.02.2014, the accused trespassed into the victim's house, threatened to kill her brother, and committed penetrative sexual assault

The victim (PW1), a student of Class VIII, reported the matter to her parents on 05.02.2014, leading to an FIR on 06.02.2014

The defense argued that the FIR was delayed, the act was consensual (suggested by photographs of the duo), and that the victim was on friendly terms with the accused

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment

1. Whether there is any infirmity in the Trial Court’s judgment regarding the conviction of the accused under the POCSO Act and IPC

2. Whether the medical evidence (MLC) is admissible if the examining doctor is unavailable to testify

3. Whether the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II IPC is sustainable given the evidence of prior acquaintance

Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. regarding appeals from convictions

Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows the admission of statements/records made in the ordinary course of business by a person who cannot be found

Sections 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act to prove handwriting and signatures through acquaintances

Statement on the doctrine derived from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), establishing that conviction can rest on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix if it is of "sterling quality"

The Court cited State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar regarding the sensitivity and social stigma causing delays in filing FIRs in child abuse cases

The Court found that PW1’s age was conclusively established as under 18 (Date of Birth: 09.02.2001) through school records, making her a child under the POCSO Act

The Court held that even if the sexual act were consensual, as hinted by the defense’s photographs (Ext. PW2/D1 & D2), the consent of a minor is legally immaterial

Medical evidence was upheld because although Dr. Ritu (the examining doctor) was unavailable, PW11 (a colleague) successfully identified her handwriting and signature under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act

DNA profiling (Ext. P-1) further corroborated the victim's testimony

Regarding criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC), the Court noted that PW1 voluntarily opened the door for the accused on both occasions and the photographs suggested a level of familiarity that created reasonable doubt as to whether the acts were committed under fear of injury or death

The Court acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 506 Part II IPC, granting the benefit of doubt regarding the element of criminal intimidation, and directed that sentences run concurrently