New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has stayed an order passed by the Karnataka High Court that provided relief to an accused from undergoing a medical examination as part of the police investigation against him.
The matter came before a Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih. The court was hearing a petition challenging a High Court order dated May 23, 2024, passed in an interim application filed by the accused.
The case involved offenses committed under Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
According to the facts of the case, the High Court had initially directed the accused to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, subject to which the police were restrained from taking coercive action against him. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer issued a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring the accused to undergo a medical examination as part of the investigation.
However, the accused filed an interim application before the High Court, expressing unwillingness to subject himself to the medical examination. He alleged that the Investigating Officer was threatening him with arrest if he did not undergo the examination at the same hospital where the victim was examined. The High Courts order on May 23, 2024, granted relief to the accused regarding the medical examination.
Hearing the matter, the Supreme Court found the accuseds reluctance unjustified and not covered under the constitutional right against self-incrimination. The court observed:
As respondent No. 2 stood protected from coercive action by the earlier order of the High Court, this statement on his part does not inspire confidence. In any event, his clear statement to the effect that he did not want to be subjected to medical examination shows that he is not willing to cooperate with the investigation.
The court also observed that the accused must comply with the Section 41A notice and subject himself to a medical examination as directed by the Investigating Officer and that he cannot voice apprehensions about the medical facility he is being referred to without any tenable basis.
In conclusion, the Court stayed the High Courts order and directed the accused to present himself before the Investigating Officer to undergo the medical examination.
