{"id":14914,"date":"2026-01-28T07:54:49","date_gmt":"2026-01-28T07:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=14914"},"modified":"2026-01-28T08:05:31","modified_gmt":"2026-01-28T08:05:31","slug":"beyond-conviction-how-lillu-rajesh-v-haryana-redefined-medical-evidence-dignity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/beyond-conviction-how-lillu-rajesh-v-haryana-redefined-medical-evidence-dignity\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Conviction: How Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana Redefined Medical Evidence and Dignity"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction
\n<\/strong>The Supreme Court\u2019s judgment in Lillu @ Rajesh & Another v. State of Haryana<\/a> (AIR 2013 SC 1784)<\/strong>\u2014decided by a Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla\u2014is a landmark in Indian criminal jurisprudence. While it affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape, its enduring legacy lies in the categorical rejection of the “Two-Finger Test” (TFT)<\/strong>. The Court held the test to be unscientific, degrading, and a violation of the victim’s constitutional right to privacy and dignity.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    • Conviction:<\/strong> The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court of Haryana for the rape of a minor girl (the prosecutrix).<\/li>\n
    • Sentence:<\/strong> The main accused was sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC<\/strong> (now Section 64 BNS<\/strong>) and Section 506 IPC<\/strong> (Criminal Intimidation, now Section 351 BNS<\/strong>).<\/li>\n
    • Defense Strategy:<\/strong> The defense challenged the victim’s minor status and relied on a medical report that noted a “healed hymen” and the absence of external injuries to imply the victim was “habituated to sexual intercourse,” thereby discrediting her testimony.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      1. Arguments<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Appellant\u2019s Contentions<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \n
        • Age Dispute:<\/strong> Claimed the victim was near 18, suggesting the possibility of consensual intercourse.<\/li>\n
        • Medical Lacunae:<\/strong> Argued that the absence of physical injuries and the findings of the two-finger test suggested the victim was “sexually active,” making her claim of rape unreliable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          Respondent\/State Position<\/strong><\/p>\n

            \n
          • Credibility of Testimony:<\/strong> Argued that the victim\u2019s testimony was consistent and sufficient for conviction.<\/li>\n
          • Irrelevance of History:<\/strong> Asserted that a victim’s past sexual history or the results of an invasive medical test are legally irrelevant to the determination of consent in a specific instance of rape.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
              \n
            1. Supreme Court\u2019s Findings & Judgment<\/strong><\/li>\n
            2. Conviction Upheld<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that:<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Minor Status:<\/strong> The victim\u2019s status as a minor was proven, rendering the issue of “consent” legally immaterial.<\/li>\n
              2. Reliability:<\/strong> The prosecutrix’s testimony was found to be “sterling,” requiring no further corroboration.<\/li>\n
              3. The Rejection of the Two-Finger Test<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                The Court delivered a scathing critique of the Two-Finger Test, establishing:<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • Violation of Article 21:<\/strong> The test violates the survivor\u2019s right to privacy, physical and mental integrity, and dignity.<\/li>\n
                • Secondary Victimization:<\/strong> Such tests subject survivors to further trauma and provide no scientific basis for proving rape.<\/li>\n
                • Legal Irrelevance:<\/strong> The Court noted that even if a woman is “sexually active,” it does not grant anyone the license to rape her. Her past is irrelevant to the case at hand.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                    \n
                  1. Legal Principles Affirmed<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Medical Evidence vs. Oral Testimony<\/strong><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • Medical evidence is corroborative<\/strong>, not determinative. If the victim’s oral testimony is credible, the absence of physical injuries (which may not occur if the victim is paralyzed by fear) cannot negate the charge of rape.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                      Exclusion of Sexual History<\/strong><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      • Section 155(4) of the Evidence Act<\/strong> (now reflected in Section 152 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/strong>) was historically misused to impeach a victim’s character. The Court reaffirmed that character evidence is inadmissible in rape trials.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                          \n
                        1. Impact and Significance<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                            \n
                          • Guideline for Doctors:<\/strong> This case led to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare<\/strong> issuing formal guidelines (2014) prohibiting the two-finger test.<\/li>\n
                          • Constitutional Morality:<\/strong> It shifted the focus of rape trials from the “conduct of the victim” to the “conduct of the accused.”<\/li>\n
                          • Precedent for Future Rulings:<\/strong> This logic was further strengthened in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022)<\/em>, where the SC warned that doctors conducting this test would be held guilty of misconduct.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                            Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana<\/em> is a milestone in the movement toward a gender-sensitive legal system. By aligning evidence law with constitutional morality, the Court ensured that a survivor\u2019s dignity is never sacrificed at the altar of “forensic procedure.” It remains a vital precedent for protecting the privacy of survivors in the BNS\/BSA era.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                            Introduction The Supreme Court\u2019s judgment in Lillu @ Rajesh & Another v. State of Haryana (AIR 2013 SC 1784)\u2014decided by a Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla\u2014is a landmark in Indian criminal jurisprudence. While it affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape, its enduring legacy lies in the categorical rejection of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[101],"tags":[28,651],"class_list":{"0":"post-14914","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-woman-law","7":"tag-top-news","8":"tag-woman-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14914","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14914\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}