Groping breasts not part of routine gynaecological examination, says Gauhati High Court

Published 17 July 2026 · health

Upholding the conviction of a doctor in a 17-year-old case, the Gauhati High Court said groping the breasts of a minor patient could not be

Upholding the conviction of a doctor in a 17-year-old case, the Gauhati High Court said groping the breasts of a minor patient could not be treated as a routine gynaecological examination. The court, however, considered gynaecologist Anup Kumar Baruah’s advanced age to reduce his sentence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to ₹5,000, with a default sentence of two months’ rigorous imprisonment. This Section addresses assault or criminal force used against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty. The case had its genesis in the victim’s visit on September 5, 2009, to a pharmacy in Morigaon district to consult Dr. Baruah for irregular periods. Two of her friends had accompanied her. The victim said the doctor took her into his chamber, unbuttoned her blouse, and groped her breasts despite her protests.

She also said the doctor touched her private parts and tried to remove her undergarments. Her friends entered the chamber when she raised an alarm and took her away. The victim’s brother lodged a first information report (FIR) at the local police station against the doctor soon after. The Morigaon police filed a charge sheet under Section 354 of the IPC after finding prima facie materials against the doctor. On August 17, 2013, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Morigaon found him guilty and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000. The doctor challenged the judgment, but the Morigaon Sessions Judge upheld it through an order on March 3, 2014. He challenged the order in the High Court, which concurred with the findings of the lower courts.

In her order on July 13, Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund held that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by her brother and another witness, was consistent with the FIR and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that no motive for false implication had been shown. The court rejected the doctor’s defence that his conduct amounted to a routine gynaecological examination, noting that the victim had gone to him for menstrual irregularities, an internal problem that did not require her to unbutton her blouse. The court also noted that the doctor had admitted, during his examination, to touching and pressing her breasts, purportedly as part of a pregnancy test. “Thus, the plea of the petitioner that on a routine examination of a gynaecological problem, he had touched her tummy and groped and pressed her breasts, appears to be absurd,” the order read.