Sexual-Assault Victim’s Non-Disclosure Of Every Detail Before Doctor During Medical Examination Is Not By Itself A Material Omission: Kerala High Court

The Court said that failure to narrate every detail in the medical history cannot, by itself, be treated as a material omission or contradiction warranting rejection of the victim’s evidence.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, including repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

A Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “… a victim of sexual assault is not expected to give a full fledged history to the Doctor and the Doctor who records the history only for the purpose of medical opinion or medical advise need not record everything in detail and thus, the statement can only be a very short one, which led to medical consultation. If a rigid and hyper technical view is taken to hold that the disclosure of the victim must contain every overt acts similar to that of a statement given to the police or to the Magistrate, the same is nothing, but putting the victim of sexual assault to further trauma to do the job of taking the risk of repeating the acts of trauma before the Doctor also.”

The Court added: “Therefore, though omissions and contradictions in previous statements may have a bearing on the appreciation of the evidence of a witness, merely because the victim of sexual assault did not disclose each and every details of the occurrence in minute niceties before the Doctor and she had given previous statements before the police and Magistrate without omissions and contradictions, it cannot be said that such non-disclosure constitutes a material omission or contradiction so as to discard the evidence of the victim. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the evidence would establish only one incident of penetrative sexual assault, and consequently that the offence under Sections 5(l) r/w 6 of the PoCSO Act is not made out, cannot be countenanced, eschewing the cardinal evidence given by the victim which would find in her statements before the police and the Magistrate.”

Advocate S. Rajeev appeared for the appellant. Public Prosecutor Sajeev P.K. appeared for the State.

Background

The prosecution alleged that the appellant repeatedly subjected a 17-year-old child to penetrative sexual assault and that she became pregnant. The Special Court convicted him under Sections 450, 342, 376(2)(n) and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3(a) read with 4, 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Special Court imposed, among other sentences, 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing the child to become pregnant and another concurrent term of 20 years for repeated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The appellant contended that the history given by the child to the doctor did not disclose two separate incidents. He argued that the omission undermined the finding of repeated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act. He also challenged the DNA evidence by alleging non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for collecting, preserving and transporting the samples, relying on Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand (2026) and Prakash Nishad alias Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2023).

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the child had provided a summary of the occurrence to the doctor and had given evidence about both incidents before the Special Court. The State also relied on the medical and investigative evidence to defend the collection and analysis of the DNA samples.

Court’s Observations

Medical History Need Not Contain Every Detail

The Court observed that a doctor ordinarily records a patient’s history to arrive at a clinical or scientific diagnosis, provide treatment or, in medico-legal cases, determine the cause of injuries and obtain other relevant information. It held that the law did not require a sexual-assault victim to narrate every detail to the doctor in the manner expected in a police or judicial statement.

The Court stated: “However, there is no mandate in law that a victim of sexual assault should disclose each and every detail including minute details before the Doctor in the same manner similar to a statement given to the police or before a Magistrate. Say for example, if a person was subjected to assault with intention to commit his murder, on medical examination by the Doctor, it is not expected to recite what all stated in the FIS in detail. What is required to be disclosed is a terse or outcome regarding the cause and the same shall not be an exhaustive history with all minute intricacies.”

The Court further observed that sexual assault causes physical, mental and psychological trauma and emotional distress. It held that requiring the victim to repeat the traumatic acts in identical detail before the doctor would subject the victim to further trauma.

Omissions In Medical Record Did Not Discredit Victim

The Court distinguished a doctor’s recording of medical history from a statement recorded by the police or a Magistrate. It observed that police and judicial statements are read over to their maker to verify their correctness, whereas a doctor is not required to adopt the same procedure.

The Court also noted that a victim may have no opportunity to verify whether the doctor has recorded everything disclosed during the consultation.

The Court held: “Further, the victim had no occasion to verify as to whether everything she had spoken to was fully recorded by the Doctor to add or deny the same. Therefore, omissions in the history recorded by the Doctor on the basis of disclosure made by the victim cannot be held as material omissions to have any legal consequences. If such a proposition is laid down, the same would lead to an irreparable and irretrievable consequence.”

The Court accordingly rejected the appellant’s contention that only one incident stood established. It relied on the child’s evidence before the Special Court and her earlier statements to the police and Magistrate to uphold the finding of repeated penetrative sexual assault.

DNA Evidence Found Reliable

The Court also rejected the challenge to the DNA evidence. It considered the testimony concerning the collection of the appellant’s blood sample, the collection of the foetal sample and the report finding that their DNA profiles matched.

The Court observed: “Here, as per Ext.P19 report, PW17, who issued Ext.P19, opined that the appellant/accused was the biological father of the foetus sent for DNA analysis, as the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the appellant/accused tallied with that of the foetal sample. The deficiencies pointed out in the procedure adopted for collection and forwarding of the samples could not be found in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to reject the DNA evidence. Therefore, this contention also cannot be countenanced.”

The Court held that the prosecution had proved the offences for which the appellant was convicted. It further noted that the 20-year terms imposed under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act were the statutory minimum and could not be reduced.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court. As the appellant was already in prison, the Court found that no further order was required.

The Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Special Court for information and further steps.

Cause Title: Shilpi v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:78263)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates S. Rajeev, H. Nujumudeen, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Dipa V., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, T.P. Aravind, Maheswar Padickal, Akshara S. and Nivedita Rajeev

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sajeev P.K.

Click here to read/download Judgment