The Delhi High Court has ruled that the presence of an intact hymen in a victim does not by itself disprove the occurrence of rape and upheld the convictions of a doctor and his accomplice in a sexual assault case dating back to 2001. The judgment, delivered on February 6, 2026, affirmed that mere penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape under Indian law and that medical findings must be interpreted alongside the totality of evidence rather than in isolation.
The case stemmed from an incident on December 19, 2001, when a 15-year-old girl visited the clinic of the first appellant, a doctor, with complaints of stomach pain. According to prosecution allegations, the doctor administered a pill that caused discomfort and then took the girl to a room where his female accomplice locked the door from outside despite the victim’s protests. The doctor subsequently sexually assaulted her. Neighbours intervened after the victim raised an alarm, and the police were called.
A chargesheet was filed under Section 376 (rape) and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court convicted both the doctor and the accomplice in 2004 and sentenced them to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The present appeals were filed against those convictions.
In their appeals, the defense challenged the sufficiency of evidence, particularly focusing on medical evidence. They argued that the medical legal case (MLC) record indicated that the victim’s hymen was intact, and contended that this ruled out the possibility of rape. The appellants also raised procedural and investigative issues, including alleged defects in the investigation and claims of insufficient corroboration.
The High Court, in a detailed review, rejected the contention that an intact hymen disproves rape. The Court emphasised that the statutory definition of rape under Section 375 of the IPC does not require proof of full sexual intercourse with rupture of the hymen. Instead, the law’s Explanation to Section 375 makes clear that penetration alone is sufficient to constitute rape.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that medical findings must be read in conjunction with other evidence, including the victim’s testimony, the presence of semen traces on clothing, and factual circumstances surrounding the incident. According to the judgment, these elements can support a conclusion of sexual assault even if the hymen remains intact.
The Court reiterated that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not necessarily undermine the prosecution’s case if they do not affect its core. It also referenced settled legal principles affirming the weight to be given to the testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases, noting that such testimony may stand on its own if found credible.
Addressing the defense’s claims of defective investigation, the High Court held that alleged procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case if the available evidence establishes the offence. Similarly, it found that allegations of a lack of independent corroboration did not create reasonable doubt when the victim’s account and other material evidence substantiated the occurrence of the offence.
(Rh)
