Refusal Of Accused In Sexual Offence Case To Undergo Medical Examination Shows Unwillingness To Cooperate With Investigation: Supreme Court
Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India has recently directed an individual accused of sexually assaulting his 9-year-old daughter to undergo a medical examination. The court observed that refusal to comply with such a directive indicates non-cooperation with the investigation. This decision came as a response to a petition challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order that stayed a police notice mandating the accused to undergo a medical examination.
Case Background:
The case involves severe allegations under various sections of the law, including:
- Section 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)
- Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children Act, 2015)
The mother of the victim girl petitioned against the Karnataka High Court’s interim order, which stayed a police notice that required the accused to undergo a medical examination.
High Court’s Initial Order:
Initially, the Karnataka High Court had issued an order staying coercive actions against the accused, conditional upon his cooperation with the ongoing investigation. However, when the police issued a notice for the accused to appear for a medical examination, he protested and sought relief from the High Court, alleging threats of arrest if he did not comply.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih, noted that the accused’s refusal to undergo a medical examination was a clear indication of his unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation. The bench stated:
“In any event, his clear statement to the effect that he did not want to be subjected to medical examination shows that he is not willing to cooperate with the investigation.”
The Court also emphasized that the accused’s concerns about the medical facility were unfounded without any substantial basis. The refusal to comply with the investigation directives under Section 41-A notice was seen as a significant hindrance to the investigation process.
Supreme Court’s Directive:
Staying the Karnataka High Court’s order dated May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court directed the accused to present himself before the Investigating Officer on July 10, 2024, at 10:00 AM for the medical examination. The Court’s directive stated:
“We are constrained to stay the order dated 23rd May, 2024, passed by the High Court of Karnataka in IA No. 2 of 2024. Respondent No. 2 shall present himself before the Investigating Officer on 10th July, 2024 at 10.00 a.m. for being subjected to medical examination.”
Legal Representation:
Advocates Mr. A Velan (AOR) and Ms. Navpreet Kaur, representing the petitioner, argued that the High Court’s impugned order overlooked critical evidence, including the medical report indicating sexual intercourse and the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, which implicated the accused.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7880/2024
- Bench: Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih
- Petitioner: [Mother of the Victim Girl]
- Respondent No. 1: [Accused]
- Respondent No. 2: State of Karnataka
Additional Information:
For a comprehensive understanding of the case and to view the court order, Click Here to View the Court Order.
