Cross Examination of Doctors in POCSO Cases- 60+ Questions, case laws, sample & overview

Cross Examination of Doctors in POCSO cases: Introduction

In the matters of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences), doctors play a crucial role in providing medical evidence that can help establish the occurrence of sexual abuse. Therefore, cross examination of doctors in POCSO cases can be an important part of building a defense strategy or prosecution’s case.

The doctor’s opinions, diagnoses, and course of treatment might be questioned by the opposing counsel during a cross-examination. This might be used to undermine the credibility of the doctor as a witness by pointing out any flaws or discrepancies in the doctor’s testimony.

During the cross-examination, the opposing counsel is given the opportunity to pose inquiries that can help the doctor’s opinions or diagnosis be understood or resolved. This makes it more likely that the judge and jury will be aware of all the pertinent details and pieces of evidence.

A doctor may withhold facts during a direct examination that is later revealed during a cross examination. The opposing side may utilize this information to strengthen their argument or to refute the doctor’s evidence.

Importance of cross examination of doctors in POCSO cases

The cross-examination of a medical professional may be especially significant in POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) trials because medical evidence can be extremely critical in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

1. Verification of medical evidence: By examining the child victim and giving medical proof of sexual assault or abuse, doctors play a significant role in POCSO cases. The cross-examination of doctors aids in confirming the medical evidence they have presented and evaluates the accuracy and legitimacy of their conclusions.
2. Credibility of medical evidence: In a POCSO case, the medical testimony of the accused may be essential to proving their guilt. Doctors’ credibility and the extent to which their medical evidence is supported by reliable medical practices and principles are evaluated during cross examination.
3. Finding contradictions: The cross-examination of doctors can assist in locating any contradictions or discrepancies in their testimony as well as in elucidating any ambiguities or uncertainties in their conclusions. In a POCSO trial, this could support or refute the prosecution’s case.
4. Protection of child victim: The physicians’ cross-examination should be handled fairly and delicately, taking into mind the child victim’s emotional and psychological health. It can aid in preventing further trauma or victimization of the youngster during the legal procedure.

Understanding POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act

The POCSO Act was enacted in 2012 to safeguard children from sexual abuse and exploitation. It defines various offenses, procedures for reporting, investigation, and trial, and provisions for the protection and support of victims. The Act recognizes the importance of medical evidence and mandates the examination of the victim by a qualified doctor within a specified time frame. The doctor’s findings and opinions form a crucial part of the case and are subject to cross examination during the trial.

The cross examination of doctors in POCSO cases is usually focused on the following aspects:

1. Medical evidence: The defense counsel may attempt to challenge the medical evidence presented by the doctor. They may question the accuracy of the medical examination or challenge the interpretation of the findings. It is important to note that medical evidence is just one aspect of the case, and other evidence such as the victim’s testimony and witness statements may also be considered.
2. Medical history: The doctor may be questioned about the questions they asked the victim during the medical examination. The defense counsel may try to show that the doctor’s questions were leading or biased, or that they did not ask enough questions to get a complete picture of the situation.
3. Credibility of doctor: The defense counsel may attempt to question the doctor’s credibility or expertise. They may ask questions about the doctor’s qualifications, experience, or any prior cases they have testified in.
4. Qualifications and experience: The defense counsel may ask about the doctor’s qualifications and experience in conducting medical examinations in POCSO cases. They may also ask if the doctor has received any special training or certification in this area.
5. Personal bias or prejudice: The defense counsel may try to establish any personal bias or prejudice on the part of the doctor that could have influenced their examination or testimony
6. Examination procedure: The defense counsel may ask about the procedure followed during the examination, including the use of any medical equipment or instruments. They may also ask about the duration of the examination and whether any other medical professionals were present.
7. Findings: The defense counsel may ask about the findings noted in the medical report, such as the presence of injuries or any signs of sexual assault. They may also ask about the interpretation of the findings and whether they are consistent with the victim’s allegations
8. Cross-examination of medical report: The defense counsel may try to impeach the credibility of the medical report by highlighting any inconsistencies or errors in the report or questioning the doctor’s conclusions.

50 important questions for cross examination of doctors in POCSO cases:

Some of the possibly important questions while cross examining the doctor in POCSO cases may include;

1. Can you describe your education and training in the medical field?
2. How long have you been practicing medicine?
3. What is your area of specialization?
4. Can you explain the nature of the medical condition in question?
5. Can you describe the patient’s medical history and current condition?
6. What training do you have, and how long have you been a doctor?
7. Have you ever examined child victim who had been sexually abused?
8. What examination did you conduct on the child victim, and what were your findings? Did you find any physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as injuries or signs of penetration?
9. Based on your assessment of the child victim, are you able to estimate the general time the sexual assault took place?
10. If the child victim did not consent to the sexual conduct, can you tell why?
11. Can you rule out the chance that something other than sexual abuse, such as a medical condition or an accidental incident, caused the child victim’s injuries or medical conditions?
12. Did you consider any prior medical issues or therapies the child victim underwent, and if so, how did these affect your investigation and conclusions?
13. Did you seek the advice of any other medical experts before coming to your conclusions? If yes, what did they think?
14. Can you think of any more clauses or requirements that the contract ought to have contained?
15. Can you give any examples of misconceptions or miscommunications that might have happened during the contract’s negotiation or execution?
16. Can you describe any modifications made to the contract’s terms after it was initially signed?
17. Do you know of any applicable laws or rules that might affect how the contract is interpreted or carried out?
18. Can you give any examples of industry standards or procedures that would be applicable in this situation?
19. Can you describe any previous interactions or connections you may have had with the other party?
20. Do you have any conflicts of interest or prejudices that might affect how you testify?
21. Would you mind outlining any possible conflicts of interest or prejudices that might be affecting your testimony?
22. Can you find any potential inaccuracies or errors in the patient’s medical history or records?
23. Can you clarify any potential misunderstandings or miscommunications pertaining to the patient’s care?
24. Are there any areas where the patient’s medical care or treatment might be lacking?
25. Can you list any pertinent medical policies or standards of practice?
26. Can you clarify any conceivable laws or rules that might have an effect on the treatment of the patient? Can you mention any pertinent market trends or practices?
27. Can you describe the patient’s prognosis?
28. Can you identify any potential sources of error or bias in the patient’s medical care or treatment?
29. Can you explain any potential limitations or constraints in the medical technology or resources available?
30. Can you describe any potential conflicts or disagreements between you and other medical professionals involved in the patient’s care?
31. Can you explain any potential misdiagnoses or delayed diagnoses related to the patient’s condition?
32. Can you identify any potential adverse effects or complications related to the patient’s medication or treatment?
33. Can you describe any potential alternative diagnoses or explanations for the patient’s symptoms?
34. Can you explain any potential inconsistencies or contradictions in the patient’s medical history or records?
35. Can you identify any potential factors that may be contributing to the patient’s condition?
36. Can you describe any prior medical conditions or treatments the patient has undergone?
37. Can you explain any potential errors or inaccuracies in the patient’s medical history or records?
38. Can you identify any potential conflicts or contradictions between the patient’s medical history and current symptoms?
39. Describe any pertinent medical studies or publications that relate to the patient’s condition.
40. What possible circumstances might be affecting the patient’s recovery or response to treatment, and how might you explain them?
41. Could you explain any pertinent legal or ethical issues pertaining to the patient’s care?
42. Can you find any probable mistakes or contradictions in the patient’s treatment or care plan?
43. Can you describe any possible obstacles or difficulties with the patient’s care or treatment?
44. Can you list any biases or presumptions that might be affecting how you perceive the patient’s condition?
45. Are there any other causes that might be having an effect on the patient’s mental or emotional health?
46. Can you describe any potential issues or restrictions relating to the patient’s financial resources or insurance coverage?
47. Can you discuss any possible societal or cultural variables that can affect the patient’s care?

HOW CAN A DEFENSE LAWYER CHALLENGE THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY A DOCTOR IN A POCSO CASE?

A defense lawyer can challenge the medical evidence provided by a doctor in a POCSO case through detailed and aggressive cross-examination. During cross-examination, the defense lawyer can ask questions to the doctors about their qualifications, the methodology used in conducting the medical examination, and the interpretation of the medical evidence. Defense lawyers can try to establish that the doctor is not qualified to provide medical evidence in a POCSO case, or that his expertise do not match.

The defense lawyer can also challenge the medical evidence by highlighting any inconsistencies or discrepancies in the medical report or the victim’s statement. For example, the defense lawyer may ask questions to establish that the injuries reported by the victim are not relevant to the medical evidence or that the medical report does not provide sufficient evidence of sexual assault. He can also try to identify the differences in the observations recorded by different doctors or discrepancies between the medical reports and the victim’s statement and try to question the credibility of the evidences and medical report. 

Defense lawyers can try to investigate about the previous medical history of the victim and try to establish that the victim’s injuries were caused by factors other than the alleged sexual assault, such as a pre-existing medical condition or other traumatic event.

Additionally, the defense lawyer may seek the opinion of another medical expert to challenge the conclusions drawn by the doctor providing the medical evidence. This expert can provide a second opinion on the medical evidence presented and may testify during the trial. By doing this the defense lawyer may try to establish that the interpretation of the medical evidence is flawed or that the injuries observed in the medical report could have been caused by other factors.

Hence, note that the defense lawyer can challenge the medical evidence provided by a doctor in a POCSO case through cross-examination however, challenging the medical evidence in a POCSO case requires sensitivity and caution, and defense lawyers must ensure that their questioning is relevant and respectful, taking into account the age and trauma of the victim. The court will also closely scrutinize the cross examination to ensure that it is conducted fairly and justly. Any attempt to intimidate or harass the doctor providing the medical evidence can be seen as an attempt to undermine the credibility of the evidence.

QUESTIONS OF CROSS EXAMINATION TO DISCREDIT A DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY IN A POCSO CASE

Here is the answer to ‘What kind of questions can be asked during cross-examination to discredit a doctor’s testimony in a POCSO case?’. A list of some of the most suitable questions to be asked specifically to discredit the testimony of doctor.

1. Can you tell us about your qualifications and experience as a medical professional especially suitable for this kind of cases?
2. Are you a specialist in pediatrics or gynecology, which are relevant to this case?
3. How long have you been practicing in your field, and what is your level of experience in dealing with cases involving sexual assault?
4. Have you ever been involved in a case where your testimony was challenged or discredited?
5. Can you describe the medical examination process you followed in this case? is this the standard procedure followed in these kind of cases?
6. Were there any discrepancies or inconsistencies in the observations recorded by different doctors?
7. Were you present at the time of the assault, or did you rely on information provided by others?
8. Can you explain how you prepared the medical report?
9. Did you consult with any other medical professionals while preparing the report?
10. Were there any errors or omissions in the report?
11. Are there any limitations or uncertainties associated with your methodology or conclusions that should be taken into account?
12. Were there any inconsistencies or errors in the medical records or test results that you relied upon in your analysis?
13. Can you explain why there is a difference between your findings and those of other medical professionals who have reviewed the same evidence?
14. Can you explain how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the cause of the injuries observed during the medical examination?
15. Did you consider other possible causes of the injuries?
16. Can you provide any alternative explanations for the victim’s injuries or medical condition that are consistent with the accused’s innocence?
17. Can you confirm that the injuries observed during the medical examination could not have been caused by other factors, such as a pre-existing medical condition, an accident, or self-infliction?
18. Can you confirm that the medical examination was conducted within a reasonable time frame after the alleged assault?
19. Did you consider the possibility that the injuries may have healed or changed since the time of the alleged assault?
20. Can you confirm that you have no personal or professional bias that may have influenced your examination or report?
21. Is it possible that your conclusions were influenced by assumptions or preconceptions about the case or the parties involved?

Here are some case laws related to the cross examination of doctors in POCSO cases:

These Bench mark judgments emphasize how important it is to handle the cross examination of doctors in POCSO cases/matters with tact, skill, and care. They emphasize the necessity for lawyers to refrain from asking guiding or suggestive questions, to be aware of the potential effects of the questioning on the child victim, and to concentrate on obtaining genuine and trustworthy testimony.

• ABC v. State by T.N.pura police station (2022): While rejecting the petition of a 43 years old bus conductor accused of raping and impregnating a 12-year-old relative, the Karnataka high court held that despite the DNA analysis proving that the accused was not the biological father of the fetus, “that would not absolve the petitioner in entirety for the offenses so alleged.” And the examination by medical practitioner is important. “The alleged act has not at all happened cannot be the inference that can be drawn due to a DNA sample coming in favor of the petitioner. Mere production of DNA sample report before this court would not mean that it has to be taken as gospel truth without examination or cross-examination of the doctor who has rendered a such opinion,” the court said. The court also quoted the statement given by the victim in the court and said, “They are all unpardonable acts on the part of the petitioner unless proved otherwise. The DNA test would exclude the petitioner as father of the fetus  but cannot discredit what the victim has narrated in her statement that the petitioner had forcibly committed sexual acts on her.” the DNA test comes about against the accused, it will constitute clinching evidence against him for further proceedings. If it is negative i.e., favouring the accused, then the weight of other materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered for corroboration, the high court observed.

• State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2015): In this case, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that cross-examining medical experts’ testimony is necessary to determine the veracity and trustworthiness of their conclusions. The court made it clear that the cross-examination had to be handled fairly and professionally, without using any strategies that would be detrimental to the interests of the young victim.

The Court observed that cross-examination was an essential tool for testing the veracity of witnesses, and that the trial court had failed to take into account the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies and contradictions that had been exposed.

The case stands as a reminder of the importance of cross-examination in criminal trials, and the need for courts to take into account all the evidence, including that obtained during cross-examination, when evaluating the credibility of witnesses.In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar (2019), the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the emotional state of the child victim should be taken into consideration when a doctor is being cross-examined in a POCSO case. The court made clear that the attorney should refrain from posing questions that could be interpreted in a way that would traumatise the minor victim and should instead concentrate on getting dependable and genuine testimony.

The High Court observed that cross-examination was an essential tool for testing the credibility and veracity of witnesses, and that the defense counsel had used it effectively in this case. The High Court reiterated that the prosecution had the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it could not rely solely on the testimony of witnesses whose credibility had been called into question during cross-examination.

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996):The case involved the murder of a journalist named JagatNarain, who had published articles critical of a religious leader named Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The accused, Gurmit Singh, was a member of the religious group that followed Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. During the trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of an eyewitness, who had identified Gurmit Singh as one of the assailants.

However, during cross-examination, the witness’s credibility was severely undermined when it was revealed that he had previously given a contradictory statement to the police. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that the contradictions in the witness’s statement during cross-examination were significant enough to cast doubt on his testimony. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the accused. The case is notable for its emphasis on the importance of cross-examination in criminal trials. It highlights the fact that cross-examination can be a powerful tool for challenging the credibility of witnesses and exposing inconsistencies in their testimony.

• State of Karnataka vs. B.C. Chandrashekar (1995): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the cross-examination of medical experts in POCSO cases should be conducted with the utmost care and sensitivity. The court emphasized that the lawyer should avoid using intimidating or suggestive language, and should be mindful of the impact that the examination could have on the child victim.

The defence attorney called various discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses, including the accused’s sister-in-law, during cross-examination. The defence attorney also emphasised that the prosecution had failed to present any crucial proof to support the witnesses’ claims.

The High Court noted that the defence attorney had successfully utilised cross-examination to highlight the flaws in the prosecution’s case and that it was a crucial tool for determining the reliability and credibility of witnesses. The prosecution was required to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the High Court emphasised that it could not only depend on the testimony of witnesses whose reliability had been questioned during cross-examination.

• Dr. Suresh Gupta vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2004): In this case, the Supreme Court held that cross-examination of a medical expert is essential in a criminal trial in order to test the veracity and credibility of their evidence. The court further stated that a failure to cross-examine a medical expert would render their evidence inadmissible.

The case serves as a timely reminder of the significance of striking a balance between the right to cross-examination and other factors in administrative processes, as well as the requirement for a flexible approach to the admissibility of evidence in such hearings.

• State of Haryana vs. Jai Singh (2010): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of cross-examining a medical expert in a sexual assault case. The court held that the cross-examination of the medical expert is necessary to ensure that the evidence presented by them is reliable and trustworthy.
• State of Uttar Pradesh vs. ChhoteyLal (2011): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the cross-examination of medical experts is crucial in criminal trials. The court held that the testimony of a medical expert cannot be taken at face value and must be subjected to cross-examination in order to test its credibility and reliability.
• Mukesh vs. State for NCT of Delhi (2017): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of cross-examining a medical expert in a rape case. The court held that the medical evidence presented by a medical expert must be tested through cross-examination in order to establish the truth and credibility of their findings.
• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh KisanBhilare (2012)In this case, the Bombay High Court ruled that it is crucial to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of a medical expert’s testimony through cross-examination. The court emphasised that a medical expert’s testimony should be exposed to cross-examination in order to ascertain its veracity.
• State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh (2004): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a medical witness must give clear and unequivocal evidence in a POCSO case. Any ambiguity or vagueness in the medical report or statement can lead to the accused being acquitted. The court also held that the absence of visible marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical examination would not necessarily mean that she had not suffered any injuries or that she had offered no resistance at the time of commission of the crime.
• State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar s/o MahadeoKatkar (2016): The Bombay High Court emphasised the significance of cross examination of doctor/ medical specialists in criminal trials in this case. The court ruled that cross-examining a medical expert’s testimony would be necessary to evaluate its dependability and credibility.
• State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh K. Bhutiani, 2017: The Bombay High Court emphasised the value of cross-examining a medical expert in this case because it involved allegations of medical negligence. The court ruled that in order to determine the veracity and trustworthiness of a medical expert’s testimony, it must be put to the test through cross-examination.
• Sambhaji Damodar Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra (2020): In this instance, the Bombay High Court ruled that it is essential to prove the truth in a criminal prosecution through the cross-examination of doctor in POCSO cases. The court emphasised the need for cross-examination to evaluate the trustworthiness and credibility of any medical expert’s testimony.

What are the common challenges faced while cross examining a doctor in POCSO cases?

Cross examination of doctors in POCSO cases is a tough job and has several challenges, including:

1. Technical language/ Medical terminology: Testimony of doctor may include medical terminologies and scientific concepts that are difficult for the court and the lawyers/ counsel to understand. Medical terminology can be complex and technical, the defense counsel may not have sufficient knowledge to understand it. This can lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of medical evidence during cross-examination. The defense counsel may use this for discrediting the doctor and the evidence by making it appear that the doctor is intentionally trying to confuse the court.

2. Inconsistent Medical Findings: In some cases, different doctors may have examined the victim at different times as per the requirement, and their findings may be inconsistent with each other. The defense counsel may try to use this to cast doubt on the accuracy of the medical evidence.  He may try to identify inconsistencies or discrepancies in the medical reports provided by the doctor, such as differences in the observations recorded by different doctors, or the medical reports not matching the victim’s statement.

3. Limited Medical Evidence: In some cases, the medical evidence may be inconclusive or may not provide definitive proof of sexual abuse or the medical evidence available does not fall within the definition of sexual abuse. in this case the defense counsel may use this to prove that the victim’s injuries may have been caused by something else.

4. Traumatized Victims: Victims of POCSO cases  have difficulty recalling the details of the abuse or too traumatized most of the times to provide the exact details of what happened. This can make it difficult for doctors to provide a clear and consistent medical report, In such cases, the medical evidence may not corroborate the victim’s statement, which can be used by the defense counsel to challenge the prosecution’s case.

5. Ethical Considerations: Doctors have ethical obligations to their patients and may be reluctant to testify in court or provide medical evidence that could be used to harm the victim. The defense counsel may try to exploit this by suggesting that the doctor is biased or is withholding information. 

6. Bias or prejudice: The doctor may have a bias towards the victim or the accused, which can affect their testimony. The defense counsel may try to establish that the doctor has a bias or prejudice towards the prosecution or the victim, which can impact the credibility of the medical evidence.

7. Personal Attacks on doctor: The defense counsel may resort to personal attacks or aggressive questioning to undermine the credibility of the doctor’s testimony. This can make it difficult for the doctor to provide an objective and accurate account of the medical evidence.

It is important to note that these challenges can be mitigated by ensuring that the cross-examination is conducted in a fair and respectful manner, and that doctors are given a fair opportunity to present their evidence without fear or intimidation. Additionally, the prosecution can work to strengthen the medical evidence by ensuring that the medical examination is conducted thoroughly, accurately, and in a timely manner.

SECTIONS OF LAW FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF DOCTORS IN POCSO CASES

The specific laws and rules of the nation or jurisdiction where the case is being heard would determine the legal section for the cross-examination of doctors. In general, the rules of evidence and civil or criminal procedure in that particular jurisdiction would apply to the cross examination of doctors.

For example, in India, the cross examination of a doctor would be governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 would also provide ethical guidelines for the conduct of doctors in legal proceedings.

Similarly, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure would apply to the cross-examination of a doctor in the United States. There would also be state-specific laws governing evidence and process.

Can a doctor be held liable for providing false or misleading medical evidence in a POCSO case?

Definitely Yes, a doctor can be held liable for providing false or misleading medical evidence in a POCSO cases.

Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 201, Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;

If a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

If punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;

If punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

Moreover, under the POCSO Act, doctors are required to conduct medical examinations on child victims of sexual abuse in a sensitive and professional manner. If a doctor provides inaccurate or incomplete medical evidence, they can be held liable for professional misconduct under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, If a doctor provides false or misleading medical evidence that aids or abets in the commission of an offense under the POCSO Act, they may be subject to disciplinary action by the Medical Council of India, which can include suspension or cancellation of their registration as a medical practitioner.

sample cross examination of a doctor in a POCSO cases

Sample I

Here is a sample cross-examination of a doctor in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case:

Lawyer: Good afternoon, Doctor. Could you please state your name and profession for the record?

Doctor: Good afternoon. My name is Dr. XYZ, and I am a pediatrician.

Lawyer: Thank you, Doctor. Now, you conducted a medical examination on the victim in this case, correct?

Doctor: Yes, I did.

Lawyer: And could you please describe the nature of the examination?

Doctor: Certainly. I examined the victim for any physical signs of sexual assault or abuse, and collected samples for forensic testing.

Lawyer: And what were your findings?

Doctor: I found physical evidence of sexual assault, including tearing and bruising in the genital area.

Lawyer: Did you document your findings in any way?

Doctor: Yes, I took photographs and made detailed report in the victim’s medical file.

Lawyer: And were the victim’s parents or guardians present during the examination?

Doctor: No, they were not. The examination was conducted in the presence of a female nurse and a female police officer, as per protocol.

Lawyer: I see. And is it possible for a child to sustain the injuries you observed through innocent means or any other manner, such as rough play or accidental injury?

Doctor: It is possible, but in my professional opinion, the nature and extent of the injuries were consistent with sexual assault.

Lawyer: Thank you, Doctor. That will be all for now.

Sample II

Defense Counsel: Dr. XYZ, you conducted a medical examination on the victim in this case, is that correct?

Doctor: Yes, that is correct.

Defense Counsel: And during this examination, you found no evidence of any physical injury on the victim’s body, correct?

Doctor: That is correct.

Defense Counsel: And you also found no evidence of any trauma to the victim’s genitals, is that correct?

Doctor: Yes, that is correct.

Defense Counsel: So, based on your medical examination, there was no physical evidence of any sexual assault or abuse, is that correct?

Doctor: That is correct.

Defense Counsel: And isn’t it true that the absence of physical evidence does not necessarily mean that no sexual assault or abuse occurred?

Doctor: Yes, that is correct.

Defense Counsel: And isn’t it also true that many victims of sexual assault or abuse do not have physical injuries or trauma?

Doctor: Yes, that is correct.

Defense Counsel: So, your examination alone cannot conclusively determine whether or not the victim was sexually assaulted or abused?

Doctor: That is correct.

Defense Counsel: Thank you, Dr. XYZ. No further questions.

cross examination of doctor in POCSO cases

Also Read: https://legalreferencer.in/150-questions-for-cross-examination/

Also Read: https://legalreferencer.in/10-types-of-cross-examination/

FAQs