The Supreme Court acquitted a Gujarat doctor in a high-profile rape case, emphasizing that mere allegations in the FIR cannot sustain a conviction. The Court highlighted the need for corroborated evidence and reliable witness testimony.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on December 16 delivered a landmark judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. 890-891 of 2017, acquitting Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel, a doctor from Himmatnagar, Gujarat, who had been convicted of rape by the Gujarat High Court and the Trial Court.
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the case, highlighting key points, legal reasoning, and implications.
ALSO READ: Shocking Negligence: Delhi Court Slams Police in Brutal Rape Case of 4-Year-Old
Case Background
The case originated when a female patient, accompanied by her husband, visited Dr. Jayantibhai Patel on May 8, 2001, for treatment of stomach pain. The prosecution alleged that the doctor committed rape during a medical examination, leaving visible scratches and bruises on the victim’s neck.
Following the incident, the victim filed a First Information Report (FIR), and the police conducted investigations, filed a charge sheet, and submitted it to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court subsequently convicted Dr. Patel under Section 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to six years of rigorous imprisonment.
The State filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence, while Dr. Patel challenged his conviction. The Gujarat High Court dismissed his appeal but enhanced the sentence to ten years.
Supreme Court Proceedings
The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by Dr. Patel against the High Court order. The appellant’s counsel argued:
- Hostile Witnesses: Both the victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. The High Court allegedly erred in presuming that they were “won over” by the accused.
- Lack of Corroborative Evidence: Independent witnesses and medical evidence did not substantiate the prosecution’s case.
- Reliance on FIR and Police Evidence: The High Court relied heavily on the FIR and statements of the Investigating Officer, which cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
The State, represented by the ASG, argued that:
- Semen stains found on the victim’s clothing matched the blood group of the accused.
- Medical examination noted abrasions on the victim’s neck, indicating resistance.
- Despite hostile witnesses, forensic and circumstantial evidence sufficiently proved guilt.
Findings of the Supreme Court
After careful review, the Supreme Court highlighted several critical points:
1. On Hostile Witnesses:
PW-1 (victim) and PW-2 (husband) did not support the prosecution; assuming they were influenced by the accused was legally incorrect.
“When the main witnesses of the prosecution, i.e., the victim herself, has not supported the case of the prosecution, it is not open for the Court to presume that she did not support the case of the prosecution because the appellant-accused has won over the said witness.”
2. Medical Evidence:
- Examination by doctors found only minor abrasions on the victim’s neck.
- No injuries or evidence of sexual intercourse were found in the private parts.
“On performing medical examination no sign of pubic hair, semen or blood were found. Presence of semen was not found on the part of her vagina.”
3. Forensic Evidence Was Weak:
Panch witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) stated that their signatures on the recovery panchnama were obtained at police instructions without knowledge of the contents.
“Their signatures were obtained on the written paper at the instance of the police. The said witnesses had no occasion to go through the contents of the said panchnama.”
Thus, reliance on semen stain evidence was not justified.
4. Independent Witnesses Were Not Examined:
Crucial witnesses present during the incident were not examined by the prosecution, weakening the case further.
5. FIR and Police Evidence:
Allegations in the FIR must be corroborated by credible evidence during the trial, which was lacking in this case.
“Merely because the victim has levelled allegations against the appellant in the FIR and the investigating officer has deposed before the Court with regard to the contents of the said FIR, it cannot be presumed that the allegations levelled in the FIR are true and correct unless the same is proved during the course of trial by leading cogent evidence.”
Considering the overall evidence, the Supreme Court concluded:
“Looking at the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed an error by recording the order of conviction of the appellant-accused and therefore, the said orders are required to be quashed and set aside.”
The Court allowed the appeals, acquitted Dr. Patel, and discharged his bail bonds.
Case Title:
JAYANTIBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 890-891 OF 2017
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More On Rape Case
