The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that when an alleged rape victim refuses to undergo a medical examination, it can lead to an adverse inference against their claims.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh made this observation while hearing an appeal from the State of Himachal Pradesh, challenging a High Court decision that overturned a rape conviction. The ruling referenced the precedent set in Dola v. State of Odisha (2018), which established that refusal to allow a medical exam could negatively impact the case.
The case dates back to 2007 when a father lodged an FIR, alleging that an intruder sexually assaulted his daughter while the parents were away. Medical examinations conducted at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, suggested that the alleged victim had difficulty cooperating, raising questions about her mental state. To clarify matters, authorities referred her to RPMC Hospital in Tanda for further evaluation by gynecologists and psychiatrists. However, her father refused to allow additional medical testing.
This refusal played a significant role in the legal proceedings. While the trial court initially convicted the accused, the High Court later overturned the decision. The mother of the alleged victim turned hostile in court, refusing to support the prosecution, while the father gave inconsistent statements. Furthermore, the High Court determined that the young woman was mentally sound enough to understand and respond to cross-examination, contradicting claims of her being of unsound mind.
The Supreme Court, while considering the limited scope for overturning an acquittal, underscored the importance of cooperation in medical examinations, reinforcing that reluctance to undergo such procedures can weaken the credibility of the allegations.
