Mr. Vaibhav is a LLB(Hons.) 1st Year student at Banaras Hindu University (BHU).
Abstract
This paper compares the rules for medical examinations of victims and accused in criminal cases under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), with the older Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It also looks at how the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) improves evidence rules. We include important court cases to show how judges’ decisions have influenced these laws. BNSS introduces faster, more respectful, and fairer procedures compared to CrPC, but challenges remain. We suggest practical solutions to make these laws work better, aiming to help the criminal justice system.
Introduction
Medical examinations are essential in criminal cases to collect evidence and protect the rights of victims and accused persons. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and brings new rules for medical examinations. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) updates how medical evidence is used in court. Court cases have played a big role in improving these rules, especially under CrPC, and their lessons apply to BNSS and BSA. Written by Vaibhav Yadav first-year LLB students at Banaras Hindu University, this paper compares medical examination rules in BNSS and CrPC, examines BSA’s role, and suggests simple reforms to fix gaps, contributing to studies on criminal law.
Research Question: How do BNSS medical examination rules improve on CrPC, based on court cases, and what changes are needed to fix problems?
Objective: To study BNSS and BSA rules, use court cases to understand them better, and suggest practical fixes.
Methodology: We analyze BNSS, CrPC, BSA, and key court cases, using books and articles on criminal law.
Comparative Analysis of Medical examination Rules
Medical Examinations for Victims of Sexual Offences
The rules for examining victims of sexual offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) show how laws have improved, thanks to court decisions. Under CrPC Section 164A, a doctor can examine a rape victim during a police investigation, preparing a report with details like the victim’s name, age, injuries, and DNA samples. This report goes to the police and a judge. However, CrPC does not clearly require the victim’s permission or set a time limit for the exam, which can cause delays or disrespect the victim. In State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (2014), the Supreme Court said medical exams must happen quickly to save evidence, showing CrPC’s weakness. In Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court stressed treating victims with care, pointing out that CrPC lacked rules for consent. BNSS Section 184 fixes these problems by requiring exams within 24 hours of learning about the crime, following Shivanna’s call for speed. It also says victims must agree to the exam, respecting their rights as suggested in Lillu. For women victims, BNSS requires a female doctor or supervision by one, making the process kinder, as supported by Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995), which called for victim respect. BNSS reports also include the victim’s mental health, unlike CrPC, and are shared with police, judges, and prosecutors for better case handling. By listening to court rulings, BNSS makes exams faster, fairer, and more respectful than CrPC.
Medical Examinations for Accused and Evidence Rules
The rules for examining accused persons in CrPC and BNSS, along with new evidence rules in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), show progress shaped by court cases on fairness and evidence. CrPC Section 53 allows police to ask for an accused’s medical exam if it might provide evidence, like DNA in rape cases, but it’s not mandatory. Section 54 lets the accused request an exam to prove innocence, but a judge decides. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court said exams under Section 53 must follow the Constitution’s Article 20(3), meaning no one can be forced to give evidence against themselves without agreeing. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court said injuries on an accused at arrest must be recorded to stop police abuse, showing CrPC’s lack of required exams. BNSS Sections 52 and 53 improve this. Section 52 requires exams for accused in sexual offence cases if evidence is likely, with reports listing name, age, injuries, and DNA, sent to police and judges, respecting Selvi’s rules on consent. Section 53 is new—it says every arrested person must be examined soon after arrest by a government doctor or registered practitioner, with women examined by female doctors for respect. Reports note injuries and their timing, and a copy goes to the accused or their family, following D.K. Basu’s call to prevent police cruelty. Unlike CrPC’s optional exams, BNSS makes them mandatory, increasing fairness. BSA Section 39, like Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, says doctors’ expert opinions matter in court, as seen in State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan (1991), where medical reports helped decide a case. BSA also treats digital medical records as strong evidence, unlike the older law, supported by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), which stressed proving digital evidence is real. BNSS and BSA, guided by court cases, create a fairer, stronger, and modern system compared to CrPC.
Recommendations to Fix Gaps in BNSS
To make BNSS rules work well, address problems, and follow court lessons, we suggest these simple steps:
1. Better Medical Facilities
BNSS Section 53’s rule for examining all arrested persons may be hard in villages, as D.K. Basu noted about weak police oversight. The government should set up special medical centers, send mobile medical vans to rural areas, and fund more doctors and equipment.
2. Rules for Consent in Emergencies
Section 184’s consent rule, backed by Lillu, doesn’t cover victims who are unconscious, which could lose evidence. BNSS should allow exams with a judge’s permission in emergencies, while protecting victim rights, as Selvi suggested for fairness
3. Standard Medical Report Form
Reports vary across places, which can weaken evidence, as Madhukar Narayan showed about unclear medical proof. The government should create one report format, make all doctors use it, and train them to fill it correctly for court use.
4. Ensuring Quick Examinations
Section 184’s 24-hour exam rule, supported by Shivanna, may face delays due to lack of facilities. Each district should have “forensic-ready” clinics, punish delays, and check if rules are followed.
5. Verifying Digital Medical Records
BSA’s rule on digital records as evidence, per Anvar P.V., needs ways to prove they’re real. The government should make rules for digital signatures and secure record-keeping to trust these reports.
6. Recording Exams on Video
Disputes about exams, as in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum, can happen. BNSS should require video recording of exams with victim or accused consent, stored safely, to ensure honesty.
7. Training Doctors
Doctors may not know legal rules, as Madhukar Narayan pointed out. The government should train doctors on BNSS laws, report writing, and treating victims kindly, as Lillu emphasized.
8. DNA Testing Standards
BNSS mentions DNA but lacks clear rules, a problem Selvi noted for reliable tests. The government should set national DNA testing rules, certify labs, and monitor them for accuracy.
Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, improves medical examination rules with faster, fairer, and kinder procedures, fixing CrPC’s gaps highlighted by cases like Shivanna and D.K. Basu. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, makes medical evidence, especially digital records, stronger, as supported by Anvar P.V.. But challenges like facilities and training remain. Our recommendations, based on court lessons, will help make the criminal justice system fairer and better protect victims and accused.
References
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- State of Karnataka v. Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913.
- Lillu v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643.
- Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 14.
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.
- State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan, (1991) 1 SCC 57.
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
*This article has not been moderated yet.
