Lab tech gets jail for making patient disrobe

CHENNAI: A lab technician will face a three-year imprisonment for asking a Filipino woman to remove her clothes for taking an X-ray as a city sessions court rejected his appeal against the conviction passed by the metropolitan magistrate courts, Saidapet in 2017.

The accused, E Karthikeyan of Vellore district, was working as a technician at a private specialty hospital in MRC Nagar, when the incident happened on August 11, 2014.

The victim had filed a complaint with the Mylapore All Women Police Station (AWPS) two days later.

According to the complaint, he had intentionally instructed her to remove the undergarments even though there is no need for it to take an X-ray. He was booked under section 354 B (assault or criminal force on woman with intent to disrobe) and sections of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act (TNPHW).

However, in his appeal, the counsel for the accused cited the delay of two days in filing police complaint as the main reason to dismiss the conviction against him.

Additional Sessions Judge V Pandiraj noted that the victim deposed in her cross examination too that she was made to disrobe entirely by the accused and denied the suggestion by the defence counsel that she misunderstood his instructions. The sessions court also took note of the statements by other staff in the hospital about the inquiries made by the victim after the incident about the necessity to remove all dresses for taking chest X-ray.

A doctor who deposed before the court as expert stated, “in general, for taking Chest X-Ray, it is not necessary to remove the upper garments in case of females and it is usual practice adopted by the technicians only in case of males.” The doctor further deposed that X-ray can be taken for any parts of the body below the Chest even without removal of the under garments and lower garments.

This goes on to show that it was an intentional act done by the accused, the court noted.

Additional Sessions Judge, V Pandiraj also dismissed the argument by the defence that no criminal force was involved to invoke section 354 (B). “Mere gesture and causing apprehension is sufficient enough to hold as use of criminal force. For example, if a person holds a belt in his hand and gestured against somebody and caused him to have apprehension, then, that itself is sufficient to hold the use of criminal force and not necessarily that actual hurt or injury need to be caused on the other person,” the judge noted. Here in this case, this accused by way of his gesture and as if he is giving his instructions, made her naked against her willingness and caused nuisance/intimidation and ill feelings to her,” it added and upheld the sentence by the Metropolitan magistrate, Saidapet.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs 3,000 on the accused, failing which he has to serve three more months of imprisonment.