Open Access Research Article
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED PERSON IN A RAPE CASE
Published Paper
Article Details
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED PERSON IN A RAPE CASE
AUTHORED BY -
ANKITA KHAMARI[1]
When handling a rape[2]
case, it's important to note that medical evidence doesn't play a conclusive
role, contrary to common belief. In situations where there's a lack of other
corroborating evidence, the victim's testimony alone can be the basis for
convicting the accused. However, medical evidence from both the victim and the
alleged perpetrator is crucial, especially for confirming the act of
penetration and linking it to the accused.[3] Sec.
164A and 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, authorize medical
examinations for both parties involved. Unfortunately, these sections don't
specify the examination procedures. Textbooks on medical jurisprudence provide
guidance on how to conduct these examinations, gather evidence, form expert
opinions, and how the Court should interpret these findings.[4]
Need for a medical examination of the accused
The need for a medical
examination of the accused arises from the fact that judges overseeing criminal
trials may lack specialized knowledge to fully comprehend technical aspects.
They rely on expert witnesses who provide opinions based on their
investigations, which in turn bolster the judge's assertions and form the basis
of judgment. However, the court can choose to accept or reject such expert
opinions, as it deems fit, according to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. In rape cases where there are no direct witnesses and both the accused
and victim have self-interest at stake, medical evidence becomes crucial in
uncovering the truth. While the victim was always required to undergo a medical
examination[5], recent
amendments to the law now mandate a medical examination of the accused as well.[6]
Reasonable ground’ for medical examination
The police officers'
approach to requesting medical examinations for suspects varied in three distinct
ways:
1. Some
officers never requested medical exams in any cases.
2. Others
consistently requested medical exams in all rape cases.
3. Some
officers only requested exams in what they considered "fresh" cases.
At one station, officers
had a practice of not requesting medical exams in rape cases, believing that
the seriousness of the charge made it unnecessary for the accused's defense.
However, some law enforcement officials emphasized the importance of such
exams, stating that any rape suspect should undergo an examination. They
acknowledged that even minor physical contact could be interpreted as rape.[7]
The decision to conduct a
medical examination of the accused depended on factors like the nature of the
alleged crime and the time elapsed since the incident[8].
In cases where immediate arrest did not occur (non-"fresh" cases),
some officers deemed medical examinations futile. They justified this decision
based on the incident date and arrest date recorded in the case diary.
Additionally, officers mentioned that they had never encountered cases
involving sexual acts other than penile-vaginal penetration. However, some
believed that swabs from the hands could be relevant if there was immediate
arrest following penetration by body parts such as fingers (two finger test).
Determining the ‘necessary’ examination
A "police
requisition" is a written request to a hospital for a medical examination
of the accused. Typically, it includes the accused person's personal details,
date of birth, date of the alleged crime, and a request for a medical
examination and/or sample collection. The examining physician conducts an
examination and any necessary tests based on their professional judgment in
each case. In most cases, police requisitions provided only the relevant section
number under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to describe the alleged offense. In a
few instances, a brief description of the allegation was included along with
the section number. Sometimes, a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) was
attached to the requisition. The requisitions often included a general request
for both internal and external examinations, specific sample requests (such as
semen and blood samples), examination of injuries, or an assessment of
'potency.' Some translated requisitions also sought evidence of "recent
intercourse" and the accused's "capability to perform sexual
intercourse." To ensure consistency, medical examinations of the accused
were often conducted using the same standardized form used for examining
victims, particularly in two hospitals.[9]
Doctors typically conducted all required tests and sealed samples for forensic
examination, regardless of the alleged offense's severity. In one unusual case,
samples of the accused's sperm were collected.
However, some police
officers did not record the receipt of negative forensic reports or the sealing
of irrelevant samples in the case diary, as they believed it would weaken the
prosecution's case. Medical staff noted that cases involving acts other than
penile-vaginal or penile-anal penetration were extremely rare. Some individuals
suggested that 'offense-specific' testing was more relevant for victim
examinations, and there were changes in procedures for victim examinations in
cases not involving penile-vaginal penetration.
Grounding the ‘Routine’ in History
For a medical examination
of the accused under Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code to be carried
out, there should be "reasonable grounds." Unfortunately, the police
often neglect to consider factors such as the nature of the alleged act, the
potential evidence on the accused's body, or time-related factors that might
affect the availability of evidence before requesting the examination. This
oversight could result in the loss of crucial corroborating evidence or the
accumulation of unnecessary material, impacting the investigation. The
"blind adherence to routine" in requesting or conducting a medical examination
disregards both the statutory requirement of reasonable grounds and the
constitutional rights of the accused. Section 53 of the Cr. P.C., which
pertains to medical examinations in general offenses, allows the doctor to
conduct an examination that is "reasonably necessary" to establish
the facts related to the offense. In contrast, Section 53A lacks a similar
phrase. However, a strict interpretation of this phrase could violate the
accused's right to privacy, bodily integrity, and a fair trial, as the purpose
of the examination is to gather "evidence of the commission of rape."
Medical Examination Laws for Accused
Before the current
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), accused individuals could not undergo a
medical or physical examination without their consent, similar to the rules in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1892.[10]
In 1967, the Law Commission of India deliberated on the necessity of
introducing a provision authorizing such examinations, the preferred methods,
and the protection against self-incrimination provided by Article 20(3)[11]
of the Constitution.[12] Despite
the 84th Law Commission report discussing the chronological stages and methods
of conducting such examinations before the amendment, it did not outline a
systematic framework for examining both victims and rape suspects.[13]
Under Sections 53 and 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code, accused individuals
do not possess the right to object to a medical examination. However, these
sections require the existence of "reasonable grounds" to believe
that such an examination would provide evidence of the offense's commission.
The Right to Medical Examination
The Criminal Procedure
Code of 1973 contains two contrasting sections, namely Sections 54 and 53.
Section 54 bestows upon the accused the right to undergo a medical examination,
empowering them to defend and protect themselves. Conversely, Section 53
primarily pertains to the medical examination of the arrested person, primarily
aimed at aiding the police officer's investigation. The accused is provided
with the opportunity to have a medical examination conducted by a designated
physician to determine whether the alleged crime was committed by someone else
or if they suffered any physical harm while in custody or during their
appearance before the judge. It is crucial to inform the accused of these
rights.
In the case of Sheela
Barse v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court ruled that magistrates hold
the responsibility to inquire if suspects have any complaints of mistreatment
or torture during police custody. They must also inform those who have been
arrested of their right to a medical examination under Section 54 of the code.
The Right to Privacy
The Puttaswamy case
affirmed the constitutionality of the right to privacy under Article 21 and
other freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. The right to privacy
encompasses various aspects, including safeguarding one's physical well-being,
maintaining the confidentiality of communications, and the freedom to make
personal choices.[14]
This right is considered fundamental to an individual's sense of dignity and
freedom. As a result of the Puttaswamy case, decisions like Selvi, which
recognized the right to privacy as an integral component of human dignity and
liberty, are now firmly embedded in the constitution. This right not only
prevents government intrusion into individuals' privacy but also imposes an
affirmative obligation on the government to actively protect that privacy.
In the Selvi case, the
Supreme Court differentiated between psychological and physical privacy. It
ruled that intrusions into the mind, such as those involving involuntary
interference with mental processes, violated Article 20(3) and personal liberty
under Article 21.[15]
However, physical privacy violations, such as forced medical examinations or
bodily substance extraction, were deemed justifiable exercises of police
powers.
While recognizing the
need for certain limits on the right to privacy, Puttaswamy's case emphasized
that any such restrictions must align with the maximum extent to which the
fundamental freedoms protected by Part III of the Constitution can be
curtailed. Additionally, the minority opinion authored by Justice Chandrachud
explained that any violation of this right must adhere to the principles of
legality, necessity as a means to achieve a legitimate state objective, and
proportionality, which signifies a logical connection between the objectives
and the methods employed.
While the Selvi case
acknowledged the role of legislators in striking a balance between individual
privacy and public safety, it made it clear that "compelling public
interest" could not be used to override core constitutional protections
like the privilege against self-incrimination. However, after the Puttaswamy
case, the state's compelling interest, subject to the principle of
proportionality, could justify limitations on privacy.
The Right to Dignity
In the Selvi case, the
Court established that Article 21 of the Constitution serves as a sufficient
basis for the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment while in custody, even though the Constitution lacks explicit
protection against such treatment. This protection extends to any person who is
arrested or detained,[16]
regardless of the presence or absence of an "overbearing police
presence." These safeguards are rooted in the constitutional provisions of
Articles 20(3) and 21. These safeguards are not limited to physical mistreatment
but also encompass psychological forms of torture. Thus, any form of
"forced intrusions" into an individual's thoughts is considered an
assault on their inherent value and freedom. The Supreme Court's decision in
Puttaswamy further recognized that privacy plays a central role in upholding
human dignity. It affirmed that an individual's dignity and freedom are the
foundational principles from which all other fundamental freedoms emanate.
Scientific Validity of Tests and the Right to a Fair Trial
In Selvi court commended
the scientific validity of the tests, linking it to the accused's right to a
fair trial, which is a fundamental aspect of the freedom to pursue one's own
interests as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.[17]
In the context of a fair trial, both the accused and the victim have a
significant stake in this aspect of the investigation. For the accused, whose
guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, reliable and scientifically
valid tests are crucial. Similarly, for the victim, whose credibility may be
questioned, the court's reliance on solid medical examination results instead
of hearsay is essential.
Legal Responsibilities of Health Workers in Cases
of Sexual Offenses
In our approach to
providing medico-legal care for the accused, we emphasize the importance of
scientific and forensic rigor in the investigation process to ensure
transparency in evidence collection, ultimately striving for justice rather
than injustice. This approach is guided by the principle known as the Blackstone
Ratio, which asserts that "it is better for ten guilty individuals to
escape punishment than for one innocent person to be wrongfully
convicted." We firmly uphold the presumption of innocence for the accused
until proven guilty.[18]
Healthcare providers,
whether in the public or private sector, are obligated to offer medical
treatment as per Section 357C of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was
introduced through the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013.[19]
Failure to provide treatment carries penalties, including imprisonment for up
to a year, a fine of up to 10,000 rupees, or both, under Section 166B of the
Indian Penal Code. It is imperative for healthcare providers to address the
needs of both victims and alleged offenders. This fundamental principle aligns
with the rules and procedures of the court and was articulated by the English
jurist William Blackstone. It emphasizes that trust in the justice system is
strengthened when evidence is handled openly, ensuring that both victims and
accused individuals receive fair trials. Forensic science operates on the basis
of Lockard's Exchange Principle, which posits that any suspect leaves something
at the crime scene and takes something from it—both of which can serve as
evidence. The utilization of forensic science and technology in police
investigations simplifies evidence collection, adhering to the belief that
"the evidence will speak for itself." Furthermore, it is essential
for the administration of justice to be conducted transparently and in full
public view.[20]
Elements of Medical Examination in Sexual Assault Cases
An Accused's Consent
for Medical Examination: In cases of sexual assault, obtaining consent from the accused for a
medical examination is not mandatory. Samples can be collected and provided for
forensic analysis without the accused's consent. However, if the accused
voluntarily consents to a medical examination, this can lead to additional
evidence collection. If the accused declines consent after being informed of
the potential consequences and inferences that may be drawn by the courts,
their refusal should be documented.
Medical Evidence (in
Rape Cases):
1. Sexually-Related
Injuries: These injuries are typically absent.
2. Victim's
Injuries: Injuries caused by the victim's resistance, such as cuts or bites,
should be documented.
3. SMEGMA: Its
presence or absence can be significant in disproving false rape claims.
4. Offender's
Sexual Activity: Determining whether the offender engaged in sexual activity is
crucial.
5. Venereal
Diseases: The offender's history of genital herpes should be investigated.
Physical Evidence:
1. Stains:
Vaginal fluid, blood, and semen stains on various body parts and clothing
should be collected.
2. Foreign
Hairs: Foreign hairs mixed with pubic hairs should be collected.
3. Clothing
Fibers: Fibers from the victim's clothing may be found on the accused's
clothes.
4. Cosmetic
Stains: Stains from cosmetics on clothing and skin.
5. Fingernail
Scrapings: Evidence from the victim, such as vaginal fluid or skin, may be
found in the accused's fingernail scrapings.
6. Scene
Debris: Relevant in cases involving the scene of the crime.
7. Torn
Clothing: Torn clothing should be preserved for expert examination.[21]
Potency Examination: Potency examinations should be
discontinued due to changes in the definition of rape/sexual assault in the
Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013. Conducting potency examinations is largely
unnecessary and irrelevant today.[22]
There is no scientific basis or ethical justification for compelling the
accused to masturbate during the examination. If semen samples are required for
DNA profiling, other methods, such as blood samples, can be used.[23]
Age Verification of
Accused: Medical age
verification tests should only be conducted when documentary proof of age is
unavailable, suspiciously fabricated, or manipulated. The Supreme Court has
clarified that such tests should be reserved for cases where documents or
certificates are found to be fraudulent.[24]
Overall, medical
examinations in sexual assault cases must adhere to ethical and legal
standards, ensuring the rights and dignity of both victims and the accused.
Corroborative evidence
In rape cases, corroborating
evidence is not always a legal requirement for the judge to find the victim's
testimony credible. While it's not mandatory, it is advisable that the
prosecutrix's testimony be supported by other witnesses for the court to rely
on it. Under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, the court presumes that the
rape victim did not consent and the offence was committed against her will.[25]
In cases where sexual intercourse is proven under specific sections of the IPC,
and the woman claims non-consent in her testimony, the court will presume lack
of consent.[26] In such
cases, the victim's testimony is crucial, and unless there are compelling
reasons to seek additional evidence, courts can convict based solely on the
victim's testimony if it's considered reliable.[27]
The Karnataka High Court
held in the case of State of Karnataka v. S. Raju[28]
that a rape accuser can be found guilty even in the absence of medical
evidence. Therefore, medical reports are not always necessary as evidence. Similarly,
in the case of State of MP v. Dayal Sahu[29],
the Supreme Court emphasized that appellate courts should not base their
decisions on irrelevant circumstances when determining guilt. The accused may
not benefit from doubts if the victim's and other witnesses' testimony is
considered reliable.
Some participants noted
that due to separate examinations by different medical teams, there is limited
opportunity for cross-validation of findings. Often, the victim and the accused
are examined by different teams or in different hospitals, making it
challenging for focused examination or cross-validation. The police play a role
in providing necessary coordination in these situations. Medical jurisprudence
textbooks typically recommend that the victim be examined by a doctor first and
then the accused by the same physician. However, in practice, examinations may
be conducted by separate teams or in different hospitals, depending on the
circumstances[30].
Expert Opinion of evidence corroboration.
Section 45 of the
Evidence Act[31] states
that opinions of experts in certain fields, such as science, art, or foreign
law, are considered relevant in legal proceedings. To present their testimony,
it must be established that an expert is qualified and possesses the necessary
knowledge.[32]
However, it's important to
note that an expert's opinion cannot serve as primary evidence but can be used
for corroboration purposes. It is not considered conclusive by the court,[33]
and the court is not obligated to give equal weight to every expert opinion
presented.[34] The
role of an expert witness is to provide the judge with scientific standards for
assessment.[35]
Therefore, forensic and medical evidence alone cannot be the sole basis for a
conviction. While forensic and medical evidence may prove that a sexual assault
occurred, the accused's involvement in the crime must be substantiated by other
corroborating evidence
Characteristic elements of medical examination
During the medical
examination of the accused, several standard elements are typically included.
These elements encompass a general examination of the accused's body parts, a
systemic assessment of their health, a local examination of their genitalia,
and a potency test.[36]
In the context of
anatomical evaluations of genital development, even during general medical examinations
upon the arrest of an individual for potential criminal charges, these
assessments are considered standard procedure. It's important to note that
Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates the "examination"
of arrested persons without requiring "reasonable grounds" as a
prerequisite. This examination aims to document any marks or injuries of
violence on the arrested person, along with their approximate timing.[37]
However, it's debatable whether Section 54 allows for various tests, including
those specific to sexual offenses, as suggested in Section 53 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The purpose of this examination is to "record all
findings" that may "exonerate or convict" the accused. Still,
this assertion conflicts with the legislative intent, which aims to prevent
arbitrary arrests and torture in detention facilities. One distinctive aspect
of the medical examination is the assessment of the accused's ability to engage
in sexual activity, commonly known as a "potency test." This test is
often associated with erectile dysfunction, which refers to the inability to
achieve a strong enough penile erection for sexual activity, primarily vaginal
penetration.
According to Section
53A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the report of the examining physician
must provide precise justifications for each conclusion. Some doctors limited
their judgments to observed wounds and collected samples, while the majority
also offered opinions on the accused's "ability to engage in sexual
activity."
In the case files
reviewed in Delhi, the medico-legal certificates were titled "Medical
Examination and Potency Test Report." The police requisitions explicitly
required an opinion on potency, which is why this language was included in the
certificates. These certificates also contained consistent language and
findings regarding the development of external genitalia. They concluded that
there was no evidence to suggest that the person "is unable to engage in
sexual activity under normal circumstances." This phrasing, using a
"double negative" approach, was explained as a convention to avoid
making definitive statements about the accused's guilt, as it is impossible to
provide a conclusive opinion in such cases where the accused may attribute
their condition to external factors or specific situations.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was
to assess the competing public goals in the context of accused individuals'
medical examinations while gaining a deeper understanding of the processes
involved. Specifically, it aimed to balance the efficiency of rape
investigations with the protection of the accused's rights. Despite a legal
framework that emphasizes "reasonability," existing practices are
often rooted in unjustified "routine" that remains unchanged despite
legal revisions. The fear of legal consequences drives strict adherence to
these routines, potentially jeopardizing both the investigative process and the
rights of the accused. As a result, determining the appropriate balance between
these goals remains a complex challenge.
The study's findings
underscore the importance of standardizing medical examinations, evidence
collection procedures, and the formulation of medical opinions. Additionally,
effective communication between the police and examining doctors is crucial to
prevent unnecessary examinations or sample collections. Similar to the
guidelines established for victim examinations in 2014, revisions should be
made to refocus on the nature of the alleged crime, the accused's criminal
history, and scientific evidence collection methods. This would help avoid the
loss of valuable corroborative evidence and protect the constitutional rights
of the accused in the context of involuntary medical examinations.
In alignment with legal
precedents such as Selvi, Puttaswamy, and Oghad, any invasion of an
individual's physical privacy must be justified by the principles of
"need" and "proportionality." Invasion of mental privacy
requires the subject's consent. The accused is entitled to a humane and
respectful medical examination, free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment. Furthermore, the credibility of scientifically produced evidence
impacts both the accused's and the victim's right to a fair trial.
In summary, it is
essential to revise medical jurisprudence textbooks so that a defendant's
medical evaluation can focus solely on determining their "capacity to
perform sexual intercourse." This revision should be based on a
recognition that the existing "convention," often treated as law, is
primarily driven by concerns about fabricated rape allegations, given that the
accused has not made any such claim.
[1] Ankita Khamari, LL.M., 1st
semester, Madhusudan Law university, Cuttack.
[2] Unless otherwise stated, the terms
"rape" and "penetrative sexual assault" used in this paper
relate to offences under Sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
("IPC"), respectively.
Protecting Children from Sexual Offences Act of 2012, Section 4 (the
"POCSO Act"). The words 'victim' and
accordingly, the term "accused" should be construed.
Additionally, "accused" excludes non-male accused parties. per the POCSO Act.
[3] Mrinal Satish, The Law and
Practice of Rape Adjudication in India in DISCRETION, DISCRIMINATION AND RULE
OF LAW 34, 45 (2016).
[4] Durba Mitra and Mrinal Satish,
Testing Chastity, Evidencing Rape: Impact of Medical Jurisprudence on Rape
Adjudication in India, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 51, 52 (2014)
[5] The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, Section 53.
[6]The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, Section 53A.
[7] Jagadeesh N., Appreciation of
Medical Evidence by Special Courts in POCSO Cases in IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
POCSO ACT, 2012 BY SPECIAL COURTS: CHALLENGES AND ISSUES 97 (CCL, NLSIU) (2018)
[9] Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Guidelines and Protocols - Medico-Legal Care for Survivors / Victims
of Sexual Violence (2014) available at
https://mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/953522324.pdf (Last visited on 21 May
2033)(“2014 Guidelines”).
[10] Indian Law Institute,
SELF-INCRIMINATION: PHYSICAL AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED, 1-3, 31
(1963); see Bhondar v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Cal 601 (Calcutta High Court) (The
court held that in the absence of statutory authority, medical examination of
the accused without his consent would amount to assault.); Deoman v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1959 Bom 284 (Bombay High Court).
[11] Constitution of India, 1950, Art.
20 (3).
[12] 37th Report of the Law Commission
of India, The Code of Criminal Procedure 1889, 205 (1967)
[13] David M. Paul, The Medical
Examination in Sexual Offences, 15 (3) MEDICINE, SCIENCE AND THE LAW 154 (1975)
as cited in 84th Report of the Law Commission of India.
[14] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,
(2017) 10 SCC 1.
[16] Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration, AIR 1989 SC 1579.
[17] Supra note 15.
[18] 'Forensic Medical Examination
(FME): A Legal Perspective with Proper Management and Justice in Rape
Incidents' (Legalserviceindia.com, 2022) (last visited on 14 july, 2023).
[19] The Criminal Law Amendment Act,
2013, Section 357C.
[20] as established in R v Sussex
Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a
leading English case on the unbiasedness and recusation of judges.
[21] Md. Shadaab Raheel et al, Potency
Test of a Rape Accused in India – Rationale, Problems and Suggestions in the
light of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, 6 (4) EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC
SCIENCES 333 (2016).
[22] Dr. Jagadeesh Narayanareddy,
'Medical Examination of Survivors / Victims of Sexual Violence: A Handbook for
Medical Officers' (India.unfpa.org, 2022) Last visited 14 july, 2023.
[23] Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of India. The Constitution of India. Nov 9, 2015. Available from;
http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi- 4March2016.pdf
[25] Section 114-A, the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872
[26] Section 376(2) (a)-(g), Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
[27] am Pal v. State Of U.P., Criminal
Appeal No. 1105 of 2000, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench,
(MANU/UP/3000/2017)
[28] (2007) 11 SCC 490 (Karnataka High
court).
[29] (2005) 8 SCC 122 (Supreme Court).
[30] Gautam Biswas, REVIEW OF FORENSIC
MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY, 384 (3rd edn.,2015); Anil Aggarwal, ESSENTIALS OF
FORENSIC MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY 356 (2016)
[31] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
Section 45.
[32] State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai
Lal, AIR 1999 SC 3318
[33] Chandreshwar Singh v. Ram Chandra
Singh, AIR 1973 Pat. 215
[34] Khyall v. State, 1980 ALJ 230.
[35] Las Society of India v.
Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. AIR 1994 Ker. 308.
[36] Md. Shadaab Raheel et al, Potency
Test of a Rape Accused in India – Rationale, Problems and Suggestions in the
light of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, 6 (4) EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC
SCIENCES 333 (2016).
[37] Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2008; See Secs, 41, 41-A, 41-B, 41-C, 41-D, 55A, Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
(Supreme Court) (One of guidelines insisted on medical examination of an
arrested person detained in custody at every 48 hours).
Article Information
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED PERSON IN A RAPE CASE
Authors: ANKITA KHAMARI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/04
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.