The Gauhati High Court upheld Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah's conviction under Section 354 IPC for outraging a schoolgirl's modesty during a 2009 medical examination.
The Court ruled that groping a patient's breasts is not part of a routine examination for irregular menstrual periods.
The doctor's two-year jail term was reduced to a ₹5,000 fine as the offence predated the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment.
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah for outraging a schoolgirl's modesty after he was found guilty of inappropriately groping her breasts during a medical examination for irregular menstrual periods in 2009. In a judgment delivered on July 13, Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund affirmed the doctor's conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but reduced his sentence from two years' simple imprisonment to a ₹5,000 fine, noting that the offence occurred before the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment and considering the doctor's age.
According to Bar and Bench, the case dates back to September 5, 2009, when a schoolgirl visited Lily Medical Hall for treatment of irregular menstrual periods. She alleged that during the consultation, Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah unhooked her blouse, groped her breasts, touched her private parts, and bit her lips before her friends rushed in after hearing her cries for help.
Before the High Court, Dr. Baruah argued that the physical contact was part of a routine clinical examination. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund rejected that defense, holding that the alleged acts could not be justified as part of evaluating menstrual complaints.
The Court observed that although a doctor may examine the abdomen or, when medically indicated, conduct an intimate examination, "he is not required to squeeze the breasts or grope the breasts inappropriately as alleged." It further noted that the girl had sought treatment for irregular menstrual periods—not pregnancy—and held that the doctor's explanation "appears to be absurd."
The High Court upheld the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court, observing that the victim's testimony remained consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund noted that the evidence clearly pointed to the doctor's guilt and found no indication that the victim had falsely implicated him.
The Court held that minor inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, along with the non-examination of the investigating officer and two medical officers during trial, did not weaken the prosecution's case or prejudice the accused. "The testimony of the victim is consistent to her statement under Section 164 CrPC," the Court observed.
Rejecting the defense’s arguments, the High Court further ruled that medical opinion was not essential to establish an offence under Section 354 IPC. It agreed with the lower courts that "No injuries on account of sexual assault is expected in such offences," making the victim's consistent testimony sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Irregular menstrual periods can have many causes, including hormonal changes, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), thyroid disorders, stress, pregnancy, and certain medications. Doctors usually begin by reviewing the patient's medical history, menstrual cycle, associated symptoms, and performing an abdominal examination before recommending further tests based on the suspected cause.
In an earlier interview with MedBound Times, Dr. Sudipta Banerjee Oberoi, MRCOG, DNB, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynecologist, NHS, UK, explained that evaluating women with irregular menstrual cycles involves assessing multiple clinical features rather than relying on a single symptom.
"You should look for a few things: one will be irregular periods or weight gain and overgrowth of facial hair. These are the clinical features. Along with that you can use blood tests, that tell you that if the lady is not ovulating resulting in irregular periods. Then if the ultrasound is suggestive of multiple follicles in both the ovaries (from where the name comes) then you can confirm the diagnosis," she said.
A breast examination is not routinely indicated solely for irregular menstrual periods unless the patient has breast-related symptoms or another clear clinical indication. When an intimate examination is medically necessary, doctors should explain its purpose, obtain informed consent, and ensure the patient's privacy and dignity throughout the consultation.
The Gauhati High Court's ruling reinforces that intimate medical examinations must be guided by clinical necessity, informed consent, and respect for a patient's dignity. While upholding Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah's conviction under Section 354 IPC, Justice Susmita Khaund reduced the sentence because the offence occurred before the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment and observed that "much water has flowed under the bridge," referring to the doctor's age of 71 years. The judgment also serves as a reminder that maintaining professional boundaries is essential to preserving trust in the doctor-patient relationship.
(Rh/TP/MSM)