B K PAL CHAUDHRY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a medical doctor and at the material time, he was the Civil Surgeon of Dibrugarh. He was a witness in a criminal case being G. P. Case No. 654/54 in which three persons were charged inter alia under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code with the offence of rape. The case was tried with the aid of a jury and resulted in a verdict of acquittal in respect of that charge. There was an appeal to the High Court of Assam against the acquittal which was allowed and two of the accused persons were convicted.

(2.) The offence was said to have been committed on a minor girl named Roheswari Chetia sometime in the afternoon of 19-3-1954. The same day at 6 p. m., she was examined by Dr. Dhanbir Pait, the doctor in charge of Moran Dispensary, near which the offence was alleged to have been committed. It appears that the police produced her for another medical examination at the District town of Dibrugarh the next day and she was then examined by Dr. Mahibulla who was an assistant to the appellant, the Civil Surgeon. Thereafter, the police on 21-3-1954, produced the girl before the appellant for a further medical examination and she was examined by him on that date. With the reasons for these repeated medical examinations we are not concerned in this case.

(3.) Doctor Pait was called as prosecution witness at the hearing of the case while the appellant and Dr. Mahibulla were called by the accused as defence witnesses. Dr. Pait in his evidence was clear that the girl had been raped. He said that he found two circular teeth marks on her cheeks and a reddish circular mark on her left breast. He also said that he found the hymen ruptured and gave other details in support of his opinion that the girl had been ravished. In his opinion, the hymen appeared to have been ruptured the same day that he examined the girl. Dr. Mahibulla's evidence was that the hymen was ruptured but the rupture had taken place nine or ten days before the incident and was not a recent one. The appellant in his evidence stated that the marks on the cheeks of the girl appeared to be insect bite and that the hymen was not ruptured. He found no evidence of rape on her person. There was thus direct contradiction between the evidence of the doctor called by the prosecution and the doctors called by the defence, on the question of the rupture of the hymen.