Guwahati: Gauhati high court has upheld the conviction of a 71-year-old doctor for outraging the modesty of a schoolgirl, ruling that groping a patient’s breasts cannot be part of a routine examination for menstrual problems, terming it “absurd”.The court of Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, while hearing the convict’s appeal in the 17-year-old litigation, noted in the order that while a doctor examining a woman for menstrual problems may need to touch her abdomen or private parts, “a diligent person will understand that he is not required to squeeze the breasts or grope the breasts inappropriately.”Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund upheld the conviction of Dr Anup Kumar Baruah, who was sentenced by the Morigaon chief judicial magistrate to two years’ imprisonment and a Rs 10,000 fine in 2013, a verdict later affirmed by the sessions court in 2014. Dr Baruah then approached the HC the same year, challenging his conviction.“This conduct of the petitioner cannot be considered to be a routine examination of a gynaecologist to cure irregular menstrual period. Thus, the plea of the petitioner that on a routine examination of gynaecological problem, he had touched her tummy and groped and pressed her breasts, appears to be absurd,” the high court order stated.“He has also admitted in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that it was a routine examination for a pregnancy test and he had touched her tummy and pressed her breasts. Even for pregnancy test, groping the breasts inappropriately appears to be absurd. A doctor may touch the tummy or the abdomen, but he is not required to squeeze the breasts for any pregnancy test,” the court said.But, considering the doctor’s old age and that nearly 17 years have elapsed since the offence, the high court modified the trial court’s sentence to a fine.“This court upholds the conviction of petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC … The petitioner is at present 71 years old. Much water has flowed under the bridge,” the judgment stated, reducing the sentence to a fine of Rs 5000 but to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months if defaulted in paying the fine.The case dates back to Sept 5, 2009, when a schoolgirl visited the doctor’s chamber in Morigaon seeking treatment for irregular menstrual periods. According to the prosecution, the doctor unbuttoned her blouse, groped her breasts and later attempted to sexually assault her. The victim raised an alarm, following which her friends entered the chamber and rescued her. An FIR was lodged the same day, leading to the doctor’s prosecution under Section 354 IPC.Rejecting the defence argument that medical evidence was necessary to prove the offence, the court held, “It is the victim who feels that her modesty has been outraged by such an act. A doctor’s opinion is not required to prove that a victim’s modesty has been outraged, nor is a doctor’s opinion sine qua non (without which, not) to prove that a victim’s modesty has been outraged.”The court also underlined the psychological impact of such offences, observing that although the victim had not suffered any physical injury, “this conduct of the petitioner has affected the psyche of the victim. The victim is the best person to describe her mental state in cases of assault of this nature.”The high court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, holding that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
