The police in Assam have filed a charge-sheet in
the court against a doctor for raping his patient. The charge-sheet under
section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been filed by the
officer-in-charge of the Dholai police station (PS) on 13 March 2012 at the
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the district of Cachar after
investigation of a case filed by a minor girl on 27 November, 2011. This is
disclosed recently by the district superintendent of police (SP) in Cachar in a
report (vide No. G/SR/1281 dated 16/03/12) submitted to the Deputy Registrar of
the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in response to a notice of the AHRC.
The report states that the survivor lodged a
First Information Report (FIR) at Dholai PS inter alia alleging that on
27 November, 2011 at about 4 PM the complainant being accompanied by her sister
in law (name withheld to protect identity) had been to the chamber of Dr Dilip
Paul at Sadagram (Dholai Bazar) where he refused to check her up. Instead, he
asked her to be in his residential chamber for her check up and treatment. On
her arrival at his residential chamber the accused doctor asked her to go
inside while her sister in law was asked to wait outside. As soon as she
entered the house, the accused doctor closed the door and window from the
outside and forcibly raped her.
The AHRC issued a notice to the SP for a
detailed report about the case after it registered a case of human rights
violations (vide AHRC Case No. 302/2/11-12.) on the complaint filed by the Barak
Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC).
The report of the SP, however, mentions that
the medical test conducted after the investigation of the case started do not
corroborate the allegations of the victim as well as those of the BHRPC against
the doctor. It says that (1) evidence of recent sexual intercourse not
detected, (II) evidence of violent mark not detected in her private parts and
(III) her age is above 18 years and below 20 years.
The BHRC claimed that the victim/survivor is a
minor girl studying in class IX.
However, on the examination of the witnesses of
the complainant, witnesses of the accused and the place of occurrence the
investigating police officer found that charge under section 376 of the IPC
which provides punishment for rape is established, states the SP.
AHRC asked the BHRPC for its comments on the report of the SP the latter
submitted a detailed response pointing out why the medical report can not be
relied upon. According to the BHRPC the medical report can not be relied upon
because (i) there was inordinate delay in conducting the test; (ii) the report
goes against the circumstantial evidences; (iii) the report goes against the
accounts of the witnesses as recorded by the police; and (iv) the element of
sympathy of the doctors who conducted the test towards the doctor who is the
alleged violator creeping in and vitiating the objectivity of the findings can
not be ruled out as both of them are colleagues and belong to the same
The BHRPC also said that the filing of
charge-sheet by the police will facilitate the criminal court to conduct trial
on the criminal aspect of case in order only to fix criminal liability and
proportionate penal measure called for under the law. It is not the domain of
the trial court to consider human rights liability of the violator and remedies
to the victim/survivor. Therefore, it comes under the jurisdiction of the
Commission to fix human rights liability and more importantly to provide
redress to the victim/survivor in terms of adequate compensation.
The BHRPC in its submission urged the AHRC to
recommend to the authorities to provide an adequate amount of compensation to
the victim/survivor; and while fixing the quantum of the compensation the AHRC
should take into consideration the aggravating factors involved in the case
such as (a) that the alleged violator is a government servant paid from the
state exchequer for acting as savoir for those who are in physical distress;
(b) that the victim/survivor went to the alleged violator in full trust as his
position demands; (c) that the alleged violator took benefit of position of
custodian of the victim/survivors at the moment of commission of the violating
acts; (d) that the case has a clear custodial angle; (e) that the age and
social and other circumstances of the victim/survivor are such that the minor
girl has had an entire life full of colours but which has been destroyed beyond
repair for no faults of hers and her life has become an undesirable and
unbearable burden on her fragile shoulders.