The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that merely because semen wasn’t detected at the time of examination of a rape survivor, doesn’t mean that there was no act of penetrative sexual assault committed on the survivor by the accused.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy clarified that according to Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the ejaculation of the semen isn’t a necessary pre-requisite for the purpose of constituting the offense of penetrative sexual assault.
The judgment stated that “Even without ejaculation of semen if the evidence on record shows that there is the penetration of penis or any object or part of the body of the accused into the vagina of the minor girl, it is sufficient to constitute an offense of penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.”
The Court considered an appeal filed by a person challenging the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge which convicted him for the offense punishable under the provisions of the POCSO Act and section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The sessions judge sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of ₹5,000.
Further, the prosecution case was that when the minor survivor along with other children including her elder sister were playing behind her house, the appellant-accused approached them and lured them by offering chocolates.
When the other children ran away, the accused took the minor girl to his house by offering chocolates and made her lie at the hearth in his house and lifted her skirt, and lay down on her.
At that time, on receipt of information from the survivor’s elder sister, their mother reached the house of the accused and she found the accused lying to her daughter. When she raised her voice, the accused got up, pushed her away, and fled the scene.
The counsel appearing for the accused contended that as per the medical report, there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse as semen wasn’t detected at the time of examination of the minor girl.
Further, he contended that the trial court hadn’t appreciated the medical evidence on record properly and arrived at an erroneous conclusion that there was penetrative sexual assault.
The accused claimed that the survivor’s family filed the sexual assault case against him due to the grudge they hold against him for refusing to sell his property as allegedly demanded by the survivor’s mother.
He argued that except for the evidence of the girl and her mother, there was no corroborative evidence to their testimony and in its absence, it’s not safe to rely on their testimonies.
The Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the State contended that no mother would venture to involve the modesty of her minor girl for the purpose of wreaking vengeance against the accused simply for not conceding to the demand to sell some property of the accused.
He further contended that the survivor might have been subjected to sexual intercourse as the medical report stated that the vagina admitted one finger and the hymen of the victim girl was torn with the presence of blood.
Further, the judgment of the trial court was perfectly sustainable under the law and it doesn’t suffer from any legal infirmity.
The High Court after careful consideration of the facts, medical reports, and statements of the witnesses said that there were no valid grounds emanating from the record to disbelieve the testimony of the victim girl’s mother.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused and upheld the trial court’s order.
