Chapter V
Section 53 CrPC: Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer
New Law Update (2024)
Section 55 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
(2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 53(1)
This subsection grants police officers (Sub-Inspector and above) the authority to request a medical examination of an arrested person by a registered medical practitioner. This is permissible when there are reasonable grounds to believe the examination will provide evidence related to an offence, and reasonable force may be used for this purpose.
Section 53(2)
This crucial safeguard mandates that if the arrested person requiring examination is female, the procedure must be conducted exclusively by, or under the direct supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner, ensuring respect for privacy and dignity.
Landmark Judgements
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010):
The Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and BEAP tests constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, violating Articles 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. While voluntary consent may allow such tests, the results cannot be admitted as testimonial evidence unless specific conditions are met.
Ritesh Chakkraborty v. State of West Bengal (2001):
This case reiterated the scope of Section 53, confirming that medical examination of an accused, including taking samples like blood or semen, is permissible under this section to gather evidence, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe such examination will afford evidence of the commission of an offence.