High Court Decision on Doctor’s Conviction
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a 71-year-old doctor, Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah, for the offense of assaulting with intent to outrage modesty. This verdict comes after allegations surfaced that he inappropriately touched a schoolgirl’s breasts during a medical examination for irregular periods. The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, reduced Dr. Baruah’s initial sentence from two years of imprisonment to a fine of ₹5,000 due to his advanced age.
Court’s Consideration and Judgment
The judgment, issued on July 13, clarified that while medical examinations for irregular menstrual periods might necessitate certain physical examinations, inappropriate actions such as squeezing or groping the breasts are not justified. “A diligent person will understand that he is not required to squeeze the breasts or grope the breasts inappropriately,” the court stated.
Details of the Incident
The incident occurred on September 5, 2009, when the victim visited Dr. Baruah at Lily Medical Hall, accompanied by two friends. During the examination, the doctor allegedly touched her breasts inappropriately and removed her underwear, attempting further assault. The victim’s friends intervened after she raised an alarm.
Legal Proceedings and Findings
Following a thorough investigation, Dr. Baruah was convicted by a Chief Judicial Magistrate in 2013 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. This conviction was upheld by a Sessions Court in 2014. Dr. Baruah then filed a revision plea before the High Court, challenging the conviction.
Dr. Baruah’s counsel argued that a key medical officer and the investigating officer were not examined during the trial, and highlighted contradictions in the evidence provided by the victim’s friends. However, the High Court found sufficient evidence that Dr. Baruah continued inappropriate contact despite the victim’s protests, including touching other private parts and biting her lips. “These acts suggest inappropriate sexual harassment with ill motive,” the court noted, finding the victim’s testimony consistent with her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
More Read
Rationale Behind the Court’s Decision
The court emphasized that the doctor’s conduct was not part of a routine gynecological examination. “The victim was not required to unhook her blouse as she was suffering from irregular periods, which is an internal problem,” the court observed, dismissing the doctor’s defense.
While there were minor contradictions in witness testimonies, the court ruled that these did not prejudice the defendant. Furthermore, it stated that a doctor’s opinion was unnecessary to establish that the victim’s modesty had been outraged. “No injuries on account of sexual assault are expected in such offenses,” the court remarked.
Ultimately, the court upheld the doctor’s conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine, considering the laws applicable in 2009, prior to the 2013 amendment of Section 354. “The petitioner is at present 71 years old, and much water has flowed under the bridge,” the court concluded.
The convict was represented by Senior Advocate TJ Mahanta, while Additional Public Prosecutor RJ Baruah appeared for the State.
