Victim As Well As Medical Evidence Didn't Support Prosecution Case: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor In 2001 Rape Case

The appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused and allowing the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-accused.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held,“We are of the view that when the main witness 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. Moreso, PW2, i.e., the husband of the victim, also did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, as observed hereinabove the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution.”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agrawal represented the Appellant, while AOR Shantanu Sagar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant-accused was a doctor having a medical practice at Himmatnagar, Gujarat. The informant victim used to go to the appellant-accused for her treatment for pain in her stomach. It was alleged that on May 8, 2001, the victim, along with her husband, had gone to the appellant-accused at his dispensary in the morning hours. The victim was taken into the chamber by the appellant-accused for examination, where, after fondling with her in the guise of examination, the appellant-accused forcibly committed intercourse with her. The victim came out of the room and immediately narrated the incident to her husband.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a First Information Report came to be lodged against the appellant-accused. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. After the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six years. Thereafter, the appellant-accused preferred an appeal against the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court, whereas the State preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence of the appellant-accused. The appeal of the State came to be allowed, and challenging the same, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the evidence on record, the Bench noted that the victim and her husband had not supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, they were declared hostile. Thus, deposition of such witnesses could not be relied upon. The Bench further noticed that the High Court had mainly placed reliance upon stains of semen found on the clothes of the victim as well as the appellant-accused. The High Court had also observed that the blood group of the appellant-accused was ‘B’ and the group of stains found from the clothes of the victim and clothes of the appellant-accused were also of group ‘B’.

From the deposition given by the panch witnesses of the recovery of clothes of the appellant-accused as well as the victim, the Bench noted that 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, the High Court committed an error while placing reliance upon the stains of semen found on the clothes of the victim as well as the appellant-accused while passing the impugned judgment and order.

The Bench also noted that though three independent witnesses cited as prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet were present at the place of occurrence, i.e. in the hospital/clinic of the appellant-accused, they were not examined by the prosecution. The medical evidence also did not support the version of the prosecution. “Merely because the victim has levelled allegations against the appellant-accused 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”, it added.

Thus, setting aside the impugned orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1443)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocates Siddharth Agrawal, Nikhil Goel, AOR Ashutosh Ghade, Advocate Saloni Meshram

Respondent: Advocate Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Swati Ghildiyal

Click here to read/download Judgment