The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by a doctor and his accomplice, upholding their conviction and sentence for the rape and wrongful confinement of a 15-year-old girl in a case dating back to 2001.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, in a judgment delivered on February 6, 2026, affirmed the trial court’s decision finding the first appellant (a doctor) guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the co-accused woman guilty under Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 342 IPC. Both appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on December 19, 2001. The victim, a 15-year-old girl, visited the clinic of the appellant doctor complaining of stomach pain. The appellant administered a pill, causing the victim to feel uneasy. He then took her to a neighbouring room occupied by the co-accused woman.
The prosecution stated that the co-accused left the room and locked it from outside despite the victim’s protest. The doctor then consoled the victim, saying “not to worry she should take rest,” before sexually assaulting her. The victim raised an alarm, attracting neighbours who broke open the lock. A crowd gathered and assaulted the appellant doctor before the police arrived.
A case was registered under Sections 376 and 342 IPC. The trial court convicted both accused on April 17, 2004, and sentenced them on April 20, 2004.
Arguments of the Appellants
The counsel for the appellant doctor argued that there was no cogent evidence to prove the offence under Section 376 IPC. It was contended that the offence, at most, fell under Section 354 IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty). The defense highlighted the “weak medical evidence,” pointing out that the victim’s hymen was found intact in the MLC, which they claimed ruled out the possibility of rape.
The appellants also raised issues regarding “fundamentally defective investigation,” noting that the broken lock was not seized, and the ownership of the room was not established. They further argued a lack of independent corroboration, labeling the victim’s family members as interested witnesses.
Counsel for the co-accused woman argued that her identity was not conclusively established and claimed she was at work during the incident, pleading alibi.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On Minor Contradictions
The Court rejected the argument regarding contradictions in witness testimonies. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Justice Yadav observed that “minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety.”
On Defective Investigation
Addressing the missing broken lock and other investigative lapses, the Court noted the ground realities. The judgment stated, “When the police reached at the spot, crowd of hundreds of persons was there… the priority of the police was to save [the appellant].” Relying on Dayal Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal, the Court held that acquittal solely on account of a defective investigation is not right, especially if the investigation is “designedly defective.”
On Medical Evidence and Section 375 IPC
The Court strongly rebutted the defense’s reliance on the intact hymen. Justice Yadav clarified that “complete sexual intercourse is not mandatory to hold a person responsible for the offence of rape as a mere penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence,” as provided in the Explanation to Section 375 IPC.
The Court observed:
“Vagina smear made impression unlikely full act of intercourse. However, possibility of sexual assault or attempt to penetration cannot be ruled out.”
The Court further noted that traces of human semen were found on the victim’s clothes, which provided corroboration despite the inconclusive blood group report.
On Victim’s Testimony
The High Court reiterated that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is entitled to great weight, even without corroboration. Quoting Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, the Court observed:
“In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury.”
On Plea of Alibi
Regarding the co-accused woman’s defense, the Court found that she failed to produce any evidence, such as attendance sheets or employment details, to substantiate her claim of being at work. The Court termed her plea of alibi as “nothing but a bald assertion.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the victim was confined in the room by the co-accused, who facilitated the crime by locking it from outside, giving the doctor the opportunity to commit the offence. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellants.
“The learned Trial Court has thus, rightly held both the Appellants guilty and convicted,” Justice Yadav ruled.
The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender forthwith.
