GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a doctor in a 17-year-old case involving the alleged groping of a minor patient, observing that his contention that he touched her tummy and pressed her breasts during a routine examination for a gynaecological problem “appears to be absurd”.
Gynaecologist Anup Kumar Baruah had moved the High Court challenging the judgement of a lower court in Morigaon district that convicted him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 with default stipulation.
Considering his age, the High Court reduced the sentence to fine only. He was ordered to pay a fine of Rs 5000, failing which he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The case dates back to 2009 when the victim, accompanied by two friends, visited a pharmacy in Morigaon district to consult a doctor for her irregular menstrual periods.
In her statement, the victim said the doctor laid her on the bed in the chamber, placed his hands on her abdomen and asked her to unbutton her blouse. She further stated that when she unhooked her blouse, he squeezed her breasts and bit her lips. The victim protested but he tried to reassure her that such contact was not inappropriate.
Thereafter, the victim said, he removed her panties and attempted to sexually assault her but she raised an alarm and her friends brought her out of the chamber. In August 2013, the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Morigaon sentenced the doctor to two years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10,000.
He approached the court of Morigaon Sessions Judge but it upheld the judgement of the CJM court through an order on March 3, 2014. In a recent order, Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund of the Gauhati High Court said the victim’s statement under 164 CrPC was consistent with the contents of the FIR. “The petitioner allegedly kissed the victim and bit her lips, which is not a routine test of pregnancy or menstrual problem. Thus, the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality,” the court observed.
The court rejected the petitioner’s defence that his conduct was routine examination of a gynaecologist, observing that the victim was not required to unhook her blouse as she was suffering from irregular periods which is an internal problem. “The plea of the petitioner that on a routine examination of gynaecological problem, he had touched her tummy and pressed her breasts, appears to be absurd,” the court said.
