Rape: Corroborative Value of Medical Evidence in India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/Keywords:
Rape, Medical Evidence, Medical Examination, CorroborationAbstract
Rape is one of the most heinous crimes against women. The offence of rape in its simplest term is “the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force, fear or fraud”, or as “the carnal knowledge of a woman by force against her will”*). In spite of strict laws against rape and the consequent punishment, it still remains a serious problem. In India, it is extremely difficult to prove the charges of rape against a person in a court of law. Generally, in any criminal trial, independent corroboration may be necessary before establishing guilt. But, in case of rape if the statement of victim found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the victim. However, a lot of weightage is given to forensic evidence and therefore such evidence can help to convict the guilty. Thus, a doctor can help in providing the necessary corroborative medical evidence to prove a case of rape. A doctor’s opinion is independent and scientific and therefore it not only corroborates the crime but may also help an innocent person who has been wrongly implicated.
Downloads
References
1. Modi, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty First Edition) at p. 369.
2. Stephen’s Criminal Law, 9th Edn., p. 262; Encyclopaedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4, p. 1356); Halsbury’s Statutes of England and Wales (4th Edn.), Vol. 12.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. 4. Ibid.
5. State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, 1996Cri LJ 1728 and State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, 1990 Cri LJ 889.
6. Dr. SP Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozpur vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana through Registrar.) 1978 CriLJ 180.
7. AIR 2006 SC 2214.
8. AIR 1987 SC 1080: 1987(2) SCC 27.
9. Santosh Kumar vs. State of MP, visited on 25 August, 2006 at www. kanoon india.com.
10. Jairaj v. State of Karnataka 1991(1) Crimes 278 (Karnataka); Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty First Edition) at page 369.
11. 1969 Cri LJ 585(2).
12. 1985(1) Crimes 559.
13. 1989 Cr.LJ 137 Delhi.
14. 2007 Crl.L.J. 4704.
15. Lincoln CA, McBride PM, Tubett GR, Garbin CD, MacDonald EJ. The use of an alternative light source to detect semen in clinical forensic medical practice. J Clin Forensic Med 2006; 13: 215-8.
16. (1975 (4) SCC 234).
17. (1992 (2) KLT 839).
18. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Th. CBI, www.kanoonindia, retrieved on 25 April 2012.
19. See, www.indiankanoon.org/doc/ retrieved on 25 April 2012; see also, Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Available at www.indiankanoon.org/doc/retrieved on 25 April 2012.
