<p>The high court was appalled by the callousness of a government doctor who issued a sexual assault certificate without actually giving an opinion about the occurrence of sexual assault.</p>.<p>Asked by the court as to what is meant by the sexual assault certificate, the doctor did not answer. He merely stated that the report was not given because the forensic report is pending.</p>.<p>The case pertains to the alleged sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl from Jagalur taluk, Davangere district. The accused was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.</p>.<p>Hearing a criminal petition filed by the accused seeking bail, Justice H P Sandesh noted that the doctor posted at the Jagalur taluk hospital had issued the sexual assault certificate without giving an opinion about the occurrence of the sexual assault.</p>.<p>The judge stated that the very purpose of subjecting the victim to a medical examination was defeated because the doctor did not give the report.</p>.<p>"This is one more classic case of negligence on the part of the doctor, who conducted the examination of the victim and (is) not giving report, and in a callous manner, issuing the sexual assault certificate without any opinion," the bench noted.</p>.<p>The court ordered the principal secretary of the health department to issue an appropriate circular and direct the medical officers regarding their duties and responsibilities when a minor is produced before them for their opinion in sexual assault cases.</p>.<p>"It is a fit case to direct the principal secretary, health department, to initiate appropriate proceedings against the doctor who issued the sexual assault certificate," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench recalled passing similar directions on the requirement of issuing circulars to the medical officers in the case of Pradeep vs State of Karnataka on February 24, 2022.</p>.<p>The court rejected the bail application of the accused, citing the statement given by the victim before the magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC.</p>.<p>Watch latest videos by DH here:</p>
<p>The high court was appalled by the callousness of a government doctor who issued a sexual assault certificate without actually giving an opinion about the occurrence of sexual assault.</p>.<p>Asked by the court as to what is meant by the sexual assault certificate, the doctor did not answer. He merely stated that the report was not given because the forensic report is pending.</p>.<p>The case pertains to the alleged sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl from Jagalur taluk, Davangere district. The accused was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.</p>.<p>Hearing a criminal petition filed by the accused seeking bail, Justice H P Sandesh noted that the doctor posted at the Jagalur taluk hospital had issued the sexual assault certificate without giving an opinion about the occurrence of the sexual assault.</p>.<p>The judge stated that the very purpose of subjecting the victim to a medical examination was defeated because the doctor did not give the report.</p>.<p>"This is one more classic case of negligence on the part of the doctor, who conducted the examination of the victim and (is) not giving report, and in a callous manner, issuing the sexual assault certificate without any opinion," the bench noted.</p>.<p>The court ordered the principal secretary of the health department to issue an appropriate circular and direct the medical officers regarding their duties and responsibilities when a minor is produced before them for their opinion in sexual assault cases.</p>.<p>"It is a fit case to direct the principal secretary, health department, to initiate appropriate proceedings against the doctor who issued the sexual assault certificate," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench recalled passing similar directions on the requirement of issuing circulars to the medical officers in the case of Pradeep vs State of Karnataka on February 24, 2022.</p>.<p>The court rejected the bail application of the accused, citing the statement given by the victim before the magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC.</p>.<p>Watch latest videos by DH here:</p>
