In a significant ruling addressing the evidentiary challenges in cases of sexual assault, the Delhi High Court has held that a complainant’s conscious refusal to undergo a medical examination, after leveling serious allegations of sexual assault, may considerably weaken the prosecution’s case. This observation was made while deciding an anticipatory bail application, wherein the accused had challenged the veracity of the allegations leveled against him and sought pre-arrest protection.
The facts of the case revealed that the complainant initially filed a police complaint mentioning only verbal abuse and threats by the accused and his family members. It was during a subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she introduced allegations of sexual assault. This delay in disclosing such a grave allegation raised suspicion and became a focal point of judicial scrutiny. The Court expressed concern over the inconsistency between the FIR and the complainant’s later statement, especially considering that no plausible justification was offered for omitting the sexual assault allegations in the initial complaint.
The complainant argued that the omission occurred because the police officer did not record her sexual assault claim in the FIR, allegedly out of concern for her dignity. However, the Court found this explanation untenable. Emphasizing that the complainant was a well-educated individual pursuing higher studies, the Court stated that she was fully capable of understanding her legal rights and the importance of full disclosure in a criminal complaint. The bench reasoned that such a delay and inconsistency in reporting critical facts not only raised questions about credibility but also hampered the prosecution's ability to collect timely and corroborative evidence.
More critically, the complainant declined to undergo a medical examination, despite the gravity of her allegations. The High Court emphasized that in cases involving allegations of physical or sexual violence, a medical examination forms an essential component of the investigation. It provides not only medical corroboration of the complaint but also strengthens the evidentiary foundation of the case. The Court noted that the complainant’s refusal to subject herself to such an examination, without any medically valid reason or explanation, amounted to a significant lapse that severely undermined the prosecution’s position.
Adding to the doubts raised by the complainant’s conduct, the call detail records (CDRs) produced in the case revealed that it was, in fact, the complainant who had initiated contact with the co-accused. This was in direct contradiction to her claim that she had been harassed and threatened through unsolicited calls. The Court observed that such contradictions, when seen in light of the overall conduct of the complainant, could not be ignored and cast substantial doubt over the genuineness of her allegations.
In its final determination, the Delhi High Court held that the complainant's refusal to undergo medical examination, coupled with delayed disclosure and inconsistencies in her account, diluted the prosecution's version to a point where custodial interrogation of the accused was not justified. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, subject to appropriate conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety.
The Court's ruling underscores the importance of procedural integrity and cooperation by the complainant in criminal cases, especially those involving serious charges like sexual assault. While acknowledging the sensitivity of such matters and the need to treat complainants with dignity and respect, the Court reaffirmed that the judicial process must rely on credible, consistent, and timely evidence. A refusal to participate in crucial steps such as medical examination, without compelling reasons, impairs the investigation and raises legitimate questions about the prosecution’s case.
This decision also illustrates the balance that courts must maintain between protecting the rights of complainants and ensuring that accused individuals are not unjustly subjected to coercive criminal procedures based on uncorroborated or questionable allegations. It signals that courts will scrutinize the conduct of all parties, and that procedural non-cooperation, particularly in matters as serious as sexual assault, cannot be overlooked. The ruling serves as a reminder of the evidentiary responsibilities that accompany criminal complaints and reinforces the foundational principle that justice must be based on truth supported by reasonable and verifiable facts.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.