Hathras Case: Inside What AMU Hospital Observed in MLC Report

The report says ‘injuries were absent’ in the external genitals and that there were ‘healed abrasions over the back’

3 min read
Was the Hathras victim’s family present or not? The Quint breaks down the different versions.

While the UP Police has insisted that the Hathras ‘gangrape-murder victim’ was never raped, citing the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL report), the provisional opinion by a doctor in a medicolegal certificate (MLC) from 22 September noted that there were ‘signs of use of force.’

The relevant portion of the report, under the ‘sexual assault forensic examination’ portion, prepared by Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital at Aligarh Muslim University, reads: “On the basis of local examination I am of the opinion that there are signs of use of force however opinion regarding penetrative intercourse is reserved pending availability of FSL reports.”

The MLC also reads: “As alleged by the informant, the survivor was sexually assaulted by four known persons of the same village when she was doing some work in the fields of village Bulgarhi on 14 September 2020 at 9:00 am. There is a history of loss of consciousness during the incident.” The four accused have been named as Sandeep, Ramu, Luvkush and Ravi by the survivor.

Under physical violence by the accused, the victim had said that she ‘was strangulated by her dupatta’ and that the ‘survivor was gagged.’ Under verbal threats it reads that there were verbak threats to kill.

Under details of the act, the survivor has claimed that she was raped. The certificate also notes that the victim experienced pain during walking and mild discomfort in lower abdomen.

While the report records ‘no injuries seen’ in the lower limbs, thighs, knees, ankles and records that ‘injuries were absent’ in the external genitals, it states that there were healed abrasions on the back and buttocks.

The woman was assaulted on 14 September, during which she fell unconscious, and provided her statement after she regained her consciousness on 22 September. In a statement recorded before a magistrate then, she said she had been raped. Her samples were sent to the FSL, which was received on 25 September.

It is this FSL report that the UP police has relied on to say that the woman was not raped. “As per the FSL (forensic science laboratory) report, no semen or sperm secretion was found in the viscera sample. The post-mortem report states that the cause of death was due to trauma caused by the assault. Despite the statements by officials, some wrong information was circulated in the media,” Additional Director General of Police Prashant Kumar said.

Important to note here is that the woman’s post-mortem report from Safdarjung Hospital states that her “hymen showed multiple old healed tears”, and that the “anal orifice showed old healed tear”.

Senior advocate Rebecca John and Delhi-based criminal lawyer Satish Tamta confirmed that the reference to use of force is regarding sexual assault and asked why the physical examination was not done. John said, “It is strange that the physical examination is not being used to see if there was sexual penetration or not. Unfortunately, this has been stipulated due to the recent guidelines by Ministry of Health which says that only an FSL can be used for confirmation of penetrative sexual assault.”

“There are various concerns about the way this MLC has been conducted. The very fact that the provisional opinion calls for an FSL test to be done eight days after the alleged sexual assault is problematic. How can it be conclusive after so long?,” Tamta asked.

(With inputs from Vivek Mishra from Hathras)

(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)

Stay Updated

Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter And Get News Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.

Join over 120,000 subscribers!