Is Medical Proof of Sex Sufficient to Hold Someone Guilty of Rape?

In criminal jurisprudence, the standard of proof for conviction, particularly in sensitive cases like rape, demands more than suspicion—it requires a clear and direct linkage between the crime and the accused. A recent ruling by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Basit Bashir v. UT of J&K (2025) highlighted this foundational principle. The judgment unequivocally held that medical evidence confirming sexual intercourse, without additional corroborative proof linking the accused, is not sufficient to establish rape under Section 376 IPC (Section 64 BNS) or Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Background of the Case

1. Section 363 IPC (Punishment for Kidnapping) (Section 137 of BNS),
2. Section 376 IPC (Punishment for Rape), (Section 64 of BNS) and
3. Section 4 POCSO Act (Penetrative Sexual Assault).

Basit Bashir challenged the charge order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Srinagar, arguing that there was no direct evidence against him. The only incriminating material was the medical report indicating that intercourse had occurred, but without any attribution to the accused.

Issue

Can medical proof of recent sexual intercourse be treated as sufficient ground to frame rape charges against a person in the absence of direct or scientific evidence linking him to the act?

Victims’ Statements: A Closer Look

The statements of both girls were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC (Section 183. Their narratives were consistent and revealing:

• They voluntarily boarded the petitioner’s vehicle after being stranded late in the evening.
• The petitioner allegedly offered them shelter in a hotel, where they stayed overnight.
• Both girls categorically stated that the petitioner slept in a separate room.
• The next morning, he dropped them near their homes.

Notably, neither girl alleged rape, coercion, or any form of sexual assault by the petitioner.

Statements from Family Members

Statements from the father and brother of the girls supported their version. The girls had ventured out together and got delayed in returning home. Upon inquiry, they disclosed that they stayed with the petitioner overnight voluntarily due to fear of parental reprimand, and he helped them return safely.

These statements completely negated the theory of kidnapping or inducement.

Medical Evidence: Its Role and Limitation

The medical report indicated that both girls had engaged in sexual intercourse approximately two days before examination. However:

• No spermatozoa were found.
• No injuries or signs of force were observed.
• The report did not identify the perpetrator.

The Investigating Officer failed to collect any scientific evidence (e.g., DNA, semen samples) to link the act to the petitioner.

The Court noted that such evidence, at most, confirms intercourse but cannot attribute the act to any individual without corroboration.

Legal Framework on Framing Charges

Citing landmark precedents such as Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002), and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010), the Court reiterated:

• Judges are required to carefully examine and assess the evidence to ascertain whether a strong presumption of guilt arises.
• They are not passive conduits of the prosecution’s narrative.
• If material only raises conjecture or suspicion, not grave suspicion, discharge is warranted.

In the present case, the Court held that no prima facie case arose against the petitioner.

Court’s Verdict

Justice Sanjay Dhar found that:

• There was no inducement or kidnapping.
• The girls left voluntarily.
• No evidence suggested that the petitioner committed sexual assault.
• The medical opinion, in isolation, could not sustain charges.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the charge order, discharged the petitioner, and dismissed the challan.

Key Highlights of the Judgment:

Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, emphasised:

“Merely on the basis of the opinion of the doctor that the two girls had been subjected to sexual intercourse a couple of days back, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner was the author of such sexual intercourse. The Investigating Agency has not collected any scientific evidence to show that the petitioner has committed the sexual assault upon the two girls and in the absence of any oral testimony on the part of the two girls to this effect, the offence of rape/penetrative sexual assault is also not made out against the petitioner.

In the above circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has either kidnapped the two victim girls or he has committed sexual assault upon them. Therefore, even if the material collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation of the case remains unrebutted, the same is not sufficient to presume that the petitioner/accused has committed any offence nor does it raise any grave suspicion about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence.”

Implications of the Judgment

1. Medical Evidence Is Corroborative, Not Conclusive

The ruling reinforces that medical reports, while significant, cannot independently establish guilt in rape cases without witness testimony or forensic correlation.

2. Protection Against Misuse of Law

Framing charges without a substantive basis jeopardises an accused’s liberty. The judgment serves as a safeguard against mechanical prosecutions.

3. Balance of Interests

While protecting minors is vital, it cannot come at the cost of due process. The decision underscores that even in POCSO cases, judicial scrutiny must be rigorous.

Conclusion

The Basit Bashir case affirms that criminal liability, especially for rape, must rest on solid evidence, not assumptions drawn from circumstantial or medical indicators alone. The judiciary must walk a tightrope: while upholding victims’ rights, it must equally protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution.

This judgment is a crucial precedent for ensuring that legal processes in sexual offence cases remain evidence-driven, fair, and constitutionally sound.