LI Network
Published on: December 21, 2023 at 11:53 IST
The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), emphasizing that the ejaculation of semen is not a mandatory requirement to establish penetrative sexual assault.
A division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma affirmed the conviction in the case of the rape of an 8-year-old girl.
The Court observed that the absence of semen does not negate the possibility of penetration. According to the court, the essential element to prove penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act is the penetration of the penis, any object, or a part of the body into the vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus of a child. Even manipulation of any part of the child’s body to cause penetration constitutes an offense.
The Court highlighted that the definition of penetrative sexual assault does not necessitate the ejaculation of semen. Even in the absence of semen, if the evidence establishes penetration, it is sufficient to constitute an offense under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.
The ruling was made during the hearing of an appeal filed by an accused convicted under Section 365 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused received sentences of five years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC Section 365 and twelve years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
In 2016, the accused, according to the prosecution, abducted a 7-year and 9-month-old victim. After recovery, a medical examination revealed evidence of rape.
The accused contested the conviction, arguing that the absence of semen disproved penetrative sexual assault. However, the court dismissed this argument, citing the victim’s detailed and trustworthy testimony and the medical evidence indicating an act of penetrative sexual assault.
The court referenced previous judgments, including Tamil Nadu v. Ravi @ Nehru and Wahid Khan v. State of MP, to emphasize that rape could be committed without producing injury or seminal stains.
The judgment concluded that the evidence of penetration, even without ejaculation, was sufficient for a conviction under the POCSO Act.
Case title: X v. State of Haryana
