Archive · 27 Jul 2026
Gauhati High Court condemns two-finger test in rape case
The Gauhati High Court recently made an important decision in a case about a man who was found guilty of hurting a young girl he had adopted.
The court said the man should stay in jail for 20 years because he did bad things to the girl.
The court also talked about a test called the two-finger test, which doctors sometimes use in such cases.
The court said this test is not good and should not be used because it hurts the people who are already suffering.
The girl told the court what happened to her, and the judges believed her.
The man said the girl made up the story, but the court did not believe him.
The court also said that sometimes people take a long time to tell someone about bad things that happened to them, especially if the person who hurt them is someone they know and trust.
The Gauhati High Court upheld a 20-year jail sentence for a man convicted of raping his 13-year-old adopted daughter.
The court criticized the use of the two-finger test, calling it scientifically invalid and a violation of survivors' dignity.
The survivor's testimony was found consistent and reliable, corroborated by her statement to a magistrate.
The defense argued the FIR was lodged late, suggesting fabrication, but the court dismissed this claim.
The court noted an investigation lapse where the survivor was not initially included as a prosecution witness.
- Who
- A man convicted of raping his 13-year-old adopted daughter
- What
- The Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction and criticized the use of the two-finger test
- When
- The abuse began in April 2022, and the FIR was registered in September 2022
- Where
- Gauhati High Court, India
- Why
- The court found the survivor's testimony consistent and reliable, and the two-finger test scientifically invalid
Prosecution
Defense
Delay in reporting
Prosecution
The delay in reporting is common in such cases, especially when the accused is a family member.
Defense
The delay suggests the allegations might be fabricated.
Mobile phone allegation
Prosecution
No evidence supports the defense's claim that the survivor was communicating with a boy via mobile phone.
Defense
The survivor was falsely implicated after being scolded for refusing to attend school and allegedly communicating with a boy.
- Accused
- Adoptive father of the survivor
- Survivor's Age
- 13 years old
- Conviction Section
- Section 6 of the POCSO Act
- Sentence
- 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000
- Two-finger Test
- Banned by the Supreme Court in 2013
- Investigation Lapse
- Survivor not included as a prosecution witness initially