Police or doctors can order the woman to undergo a medical exam whether or not she agrees.

The law explicitly requires her consent (or her lawful representative's) — without it, the examination is not permitted at all.

A medical report is required to prove rape in court.

Courts have held that a survivor's credible testimony alone can be enough for conviction; the medical report is supportive evidence, not mandatory proof.

The exam can happen whenever it's convenient for the hospital or police.

The law sets a strict 24-hour window for sending the woman for examination after the offence is reported, to preserve evidence and reduce delay-related trauma.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 184

Medical examination of victim of rape

(1) Where, during the stage when an offence of committing rape or attempt to commit rape is under investigation, it is proposed to get the person of the woman with whom rape is alleged or attempted to have been committed or attempted, examined by a medical expert, such examination shall be conducted by a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner, by any other registered medical practitioner, with the consent of such woman or of a person competent to give such consent on her behalf and such woman shall be sent to such registered medical practitioner within twenty-four hours from the time of receiving the information relating to the commission of such offence.§

(2) The registered medical practitioner, to whom such woman is sent, shall, without delay, examine her person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following particulars, namely:—§

(i) the name and address of the woman and of the person by whom she was brought;§

(ii) the age of the woman;§

(iii) the description of material taken from the person of the woman for DNA profiling;§

(iv) marks of injury, if any, on the person of the woman;§

(v) general mental condition of the woman; and§

(vi) other material particulars in reasonable detail.§

(3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at.§

(4) The report shall specifically record that the consent of the woman or of the person competent to give such consent on her behalf to such examination had been obtained.§

(5) The exact time of commencement and completion of the examination shall also be noted in the report.§

(6) The registered medical practitioner shall, within a period of seven days forward the report to the investigating officer who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in section 193 as part of the documents referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (6) of that section.§

(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as rendering lawful any examination without the consent of the woman or of any person competent to give such consent on her behalf. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “examination” and “registered medical practitioner” shall have the same meanings as respectively assigned to them in section 51.§

Why this exists

This provision descends from Section 164A of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced after the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment (post the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case) to standardize and humanize how survivors of rape are medically examined. Earlier, examinations were sometimes delayed, done without consent, or conducted using the discredited 'two-finger test,' causing further trauma and unreliable evidence. By mandating consent, prompt timelines, detailed and reasoned reporting, and government-hospital preference, the law aims to protect both the survivor's dignity and the integrity of forensic evidence used in prosecution.

How courts read it

Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court in Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013), condemned the 'two-finger test' as unconstitutional and degrading, reinforcing why consent (sub-section 7) and reasoned, dignity-respecting reporting (sub-section 3) are central to this section. Courts have repeatedly held that medical examination reports under this provision are corroborative, not conclusive, evidence — the survivor's testimony alone can sustain a conviction if credible, and absence or delay in medical examination does not automatically weaken the prosecution's case, provided reasons are explained.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Police or doctors can order the woman to undergo a medical exam whether or not she agrees.
Fact: The law explicitly requires her consent (or her lawful representative's) — without it, the examination is not permitted at all.
Myth: A medical report is required to prove rape in court.
Fact: Courts have held that a survivor's credible testimony alone can be enough for conviction; the medical report is supportive evidence, not mandatory proof.
Myth: The exam can happen whenever it's convenient for the hospital or police.
Fact: The law sets a strict 24-hour window for sending the woman for examination after the offence is reported, to preserve evidence and reduce delay-related trauma.