Rupture of the hymen of a minor rape victim is not a necessary condition to establish the offence of penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the Delhi High Court recently reiterated.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a six-year-old child.
The case arose from allegations that the convict, a tenant in the victim’s house in Sangam Vihar, sexually assaulted the child in January 2013, when she was six years old.
According to the prosecution, the child later narrated the incident to her grandmother, following which a complaint was lodged the next day and a first incident report (FIR) was registered.
The trial court convicted the man in 2020 and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Before the High Court, he challenged his conviction on multiple grounds.
He argued that the medical evidence, which recorded that the hymen was intact, did not support the allegation of sexual assault.
The Court, however, clarified that under the POCSO Act, even minimal penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence, and rupture of the hymen is not required.
"As per Section 3(a) PoCSO Act, a person is said to commit penetrative assault if he penetrates his penis to any extent into the vagina, mouth, etc. of a child, the offence of penetrative sexual assault is made out. Therefore, it is not necessary that the hymen has to be ruptured to make out an offence under Section 3(a) of the Act," the Court held.
The convict further argued that he was falsely implicated due to a rent dispute between the him and the child’s grandmother.
However, the Court found this explanation unconvincing, observing that there was no credible material to suggest that a child of such tender age would be tutored to make a false allegation of sexual assault.
The convict also argued that inconsistencies in the child’s statements undermined the prosecution case. He pointed out variations in her narration regarding the exact location of the incident and certain surrounding circumstances.
However, the Court held that such discrepancies were minor in nature and did not go to the root of the prosecution story. It noted that the child had consistently maintained the core allegation of sexual assault throughout her initial complaint, her statement recorded before a magistrate and her deposition before the trial court.
The Court emphasised that minor variations in memory or expression are natural in the testimony of a child witness and cannot be treated as contradictions fatal to the case.
The Court also rejected the defence’s reliance on alleged gaps in forensic evidence. While noting inconsistencies in the seizure and handling of samples, it held that such lapses were not sufficient to undermine the victim’s account.
The Court emphasised that the testimony of a child victim carries central weight when found consistent and that medical and forensic evidence is corroborative in nature and not determinative.
"The scientific evidence is only corroborative evidence and it can only corroborate the testimony of the victim. Here, the testimony of PW1, the victim, is credible and believable and, therefore, even if the scientific evidence cannot be relied on, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case," said the Court.
Though the Court affirmed the conviction, it modified the sentence and reduced the term of imprisonment from 20 years to 14 years.
The Court held that where life imprisonment is not awarded, the maximum fixed-term sentence ordinarily cannot exceed 14 years.
Therefore, it found the trial court’s 20-year sentence to be unsustainable in law.
Advocate Dhruva Bhagat represented the convict.
Advocates Aishwarya Rao and Mansi Rao appeared for the victim.
Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Ajay Vikram Singh along with Sub-Inspector Rahul Rathi appeared for the State.
[Read Order]