"Impossible to Anaesthetise Woman Against Her Will": Allahabad HC Grants Bail in Rape Case Citing Modi's 'Medical Jurisprudence'

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Ravindra Singh Rathaur, accused of rape, citing "Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology." The court emphasized the medical improbability of rendering a woman unconscious against her will using chloroform, a key allegation in the case.

Case Background

The prosecution's case against Rathaur hinged on allegations that he had entered into a fake marriage with the informant in 2022, concealing his first marriage and children. He was accused of making the woman unconscious with chloroform and recording compromising videos to threaten her. The case included charges under Section 366 IPC for kidnapping to compel marriage. The initial case had been closed based on the informant's statements, but subsequent allegations led to the current proceedings.

Arguments from Defense and Prosecution

Rathaur's defense argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was filed belatedly and was based solely on the informant's statements. The defense also contended that a Magistrate would not record statements from an intoxicated person, and there was no medical report corroborating the prosecution's claims. They pointed out Rathaur's lack of criminal history except for the informant's two FIRs.

Conversely, the prosecution maintained that Rathaur used chloroform to render the informant unconscious, facilitating the alleged rape.

High Court's Analysis

Justice Krishan Pahal's decision to grant bail drew heavily on the medical textbook "Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology," specifically its 22nd edition. The court noted the book's assertion that it is impossible to anaesthetise a woman against her will while awake, and even for a sleeping person, such an act would not go unnoticed. The text also highlights that claims of women being rendered unconscious by chloroform and then raped are not credible.

Medical Jurisprudence Insights

The court underscored that individuals of 'excitable' and 'emotional' temperaments might hallucinate or dream of being raped under anaesthesia, which could lead to unfounded accusations. This perspective from medical jurisprudence significantly influenced the court's view on the plausibility of the prosecution's narrative.

Presumption of Innocence and Article 21

Justice Pahal reiterated the legal principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," stating that imprisonment should be an exception rather than the rule in bail considerations. The court highlighted that Rathaur posed no flight risk and there was insufficient corroborative evidence to justify his continued detention.

The court underscored the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that no person should be deprived of these rights without due process of law. The court emphasized that this process must be just and reasonable, reinforcing the decision to grant bail in the absence of strong evidence.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court's ruling in the case "Ravindra Singh Rathaur vs. State of U.P." illustrates the intersection of legal principles and medical expertise in judicial decision-making. By relying on authoritative medical texts, the court scrutinized the plausibility of the allegations and upheld the presumption of innocence, granting bail to the accused. This case underscores the importance of rigorous evidence and the protection of fundamental rights within the legal process.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community