The Bombay High Court on Saturday confirmed the life sentence awarded to a 29-year-old doctor who was convicted for raping a patient in an Intensive Care Unit of a private hospital in neighbouring Thane this year.
A bench of justices P V Hardas and P N Deshmukh accepted the argument of prosecutor Usha Kejriwal that though the medical evidence did not fully support the victim's version, the act of the doctor amounted to rape and fell within the definition of 376(d) of IPC.
The trial court had convicted Dr Vishal Wanne on charges of rape of a patient who was admitted to hospital. Being aggrieved, he moved the High Court in appeal which was dismissed today.
Bombay HC orders life sentence to doctor who raped patient in ICU
The victim was admitted to general ward of Lotus hospital on January 28, 2013 after she complained of giddiness. She was under the care of Dr Tadvi. The accused was the Resident Medical Officer on night duty at the hospital.
He shifted the patient to ICU after informing Dr Tadvi that her condition had deteriorated. The victim was administered an injection which made her drowsy.
In the ICU, there were three beds which were segregated and covered separately by curtains. Dr Wanne drew the curtains and slept on the victim's bed. He then raped her. Although the victim realised what was going on, she could not resist because of the effect of the injection.
Before committing the crme, he asked the nurse in the ICU to go out and take some rest. He also told the victim's husband to take a nap as the patient was under his care.
When the victim informed her husband of what had happened in the night, they lodged a police complaint and the doctor was arrested. He took the defence that the act could not be termed as "rape".
However, the prosecutor cited judgements to show that even slightest penetration would be termed as "rape" and that this act fell within the definition of 376(d) IPC which was punishable with life imprisonment.
The defence of the accused was that the medical evidence indicated that there were no injuries of rape found on the victim. However, the prosecutor argued that act amounted to rape, which was accepted by the court.