he Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that a doctor cannot claim the protection of medical examination when his conduct exceeds legitimate medical practice and violates the dignity of a patient.
Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund upheld the conviction of a doctor under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging the modesty of a female patient during a medical examination. However, considering that the incident occurred in 2009 and the petitioner was 71 years old at the time of the revision, the Court modified the sentence from two years’ simple imprisonment to a fine of ₹5,000.
Background
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah, challenged:
- the judgment dated 17 August 2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon; and
- the appellate judgment dated 3 March 2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon.
Both courts had convicted him under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000.
According to the prosecution, on 5 September 2009, the victim visited Lily Medical Hall to consult the petitioner regarding irregular menstrual periods.
The prosecution alleged that while examining her inside his chamber:
- the doctor asked her to unbutton her blouse,
- groped her breasts,
- attempted to sexually assault her,
- removed her undergarment, and
- despite her resistance, continued his acts until she raised an alarm, following which her friends entered the chamber.
An FIR was lodged on the same day, and after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet under Section 354 IPC.
Procedural History
- FIR registered as Morigaon PS Case No. 155/2009.
- Charge sheet filed under Section 354 IPC.
- Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the doctor.
- Sessions Court dismissed the appeal.
- Criminal Revision Petition filed before the Gauhati High Court challenging both judgments.
Issues Before the Court
The High Court considered the following questions:
Whether the conviction under Section 354 IPC was sustainable?
Whether non-examination of certain medical officers and the Investigating Officer prejudiced the accused?
Whether alleged contradictions in the victim’s testimony rendered the prosecution case unreliable?
Whether the victim’s sole testimony was sufficient to sustain conviction?
Whether the sentence imposed required interference?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that:
- Several material witnesses were not examined.
- The Investigating Officer was not produced.
- A senior gynecologist who could explain proper medical examination procedures was not examined.
- The Trial Court ignored contradictions in the victim’s statements.
- The conviction rested solely upon the testimony of the victim.
- During medical examination, touching a patient’s breasts could be medically justified.
- Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC allegedly contradicted the victim’s deposition before the Court.
- The accused was prejudiced because only seven out of twelve listed witnesses were examined.
State’s Arguments
The State submitted that:
- The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited.
- Minor contradictions cannot overturn concurrent findings of two courts.
- The victim consistently alleged that the doctor kissed her, bit her lips, and touched her private parts.
- Such conduct could never form part of a legitimate medical examination.
- The hostile attitude of certain witnesses did not weaken the prosecution case.
- The revision petition deserved dismissal.
Court’s Analysis
Limited Scope of Criminal Revision
The Court reiterated that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, it was concerned only with the legality and propriety of the judgments rather than undertaking a complete re-appreciation of evidence.
Victim’s Testimony Was Reliable
The Court noted that the victim consistently stated that:
- the petitioner squeezed her breasts,
- continued despite her protest,
- bit her lips, and
- inserted his hand inside her lower garment.
Her testimony remained substantially consistent with her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC.
The Court observed that no motive existed for false implication.
A Doctor Cannot Misuse Medical Examination
Rejecting the defence that touching the patient’s breasts formed part of a medical examination, the Court held that:
- examining the abdomen may be medically necessary,
- but squeezing a patient’s breasts,
- biting her lips, and
- touching her private parts
could never be treated as part of a routine examination for menstrual irregularities or pregnancy.
The petitioner’s own statement under Section 313 CrPC admitting that he had pressed the victim’s breasts during examination further corroborated the prosecution case.
Minor Contradictions Do Not Destroy Credibility
The High Court held that minor inconsistencies regarding:
- where the victim informed her brother, and
- the exact sequence of events
were natural after the passage of time.
Such discrepancies did not affect the core prosecution story.
Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses Not Fatal
The Court rejected the argument that failure to examine:
- the Investigating Officer,
- certain medical officers, and
- another witness
caused prejudice.
Since no material contradictions under Sections 145 of the Evidence Act and 162 CrPC could be established, the Court held that their examination was unnecessary.
Statement of Victim Alone Can Sustain Conviction
The Court reaffirmed that in offences involving outraging the modesty of a woman:
- independent eyewitnesses are often unavailable,
- the victim’s testimony, if trustworthy and consistent, is sufficient to sustain conviction.
The Court observed that the victim herself is the best person to state whether her modesty has been outraged.
Final Decision
The Gauhati High Court:
- upheld the conviction under Section 354 IPC;
- affirmed the findings of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court;
- reduced the sentence from two years’ imprisonment to payment of a fine of ₹5,000;
- directed that the fine be transferred to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Morigaon as part of the victim compensation scheme.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court’s decision underscores that the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship cannot be misused to shield conduct amounting to sexual misconduct. While recognising the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Court found no illegality in the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. At the same time, it exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentence to a fine, taking into account the petitioner’s age and the considerable lapse of time since the incident.
CASE DETAILS:
Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah versus The State of Assam| Crl. Rev. P./112/2014| 2026:GAU-AS:9497
Date of Judgment: 13.07.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sushmita Phukan Khaund
Court: The Gauhati High Court
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 