No injuries on victim's private parts doesn't negate penetrative sexual assault: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court observes that absence of injuries on victim's private parts isn't evidence against penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act; upholds conviction for rape of minor girl.
FollowThe Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the mere absence of damage to the victim's private areas cannot be used as evidence that a penetrative sexual assault in accordance with the POCSO Act did not occur. Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man for committing rape of a four and a half years old girl in June 2017. The court noted that the man, who was the minor's neighbour, was powerless to refute the prosecution's account because it had effectively established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The trial court has correctly observed that injury on the private parts in cases of sexual offences depends on various factors such as depth of insertion, among others. It is not necessary that in every case there would be an injury caused. Therefore, mere absence of injuries cannot be a ground to hold that penetrative sexual assault did not take place,” the court said.
The man failed to convincingly refute the POCSO Act presumption brought against him by presenting evidence or challenging the prosecution's testimony, it was added.
In a judgement dated September 18, 2021, Justice Bansal dismissed the man's appeal against his conviction for the charges punishable under Sections 342, 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The court also upheld the sentences imposed by the trial court, which were three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 of the IPC and 12 years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act.
"In view of the discussion above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 342/363/376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed,” the court said.
It was noticed that the victim explicitly claimed that the man had inserted his finger inside her private parts in her statements to the doctor and to the police under section 164 of the CrPC before the MLC.
“In her deposition during trial, the victim deposed that the appellant took her to his house and took off her underwear and inserted his finger in her private parts. She further stated that she felt pain as well. The victim also identified the appellant in Court,” the court said.
It added: “There is no doubt that the victim has been consistent in all her other statements and has unequivocally stated that the appellant had inserted his finger in her private parts. In fact, in her testimony before the Court she went on to say that this act had caused her a lot of physical pain. Thus, the contradiction in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is of a minor character and does not make her testimony unreliable. The Trial Court has correctly observed that the victim was very young at the time of the incident and minor contradictions cannot be a ground to disbelieve her testimony.”
The victim's mother plainly testified that she asked the victim about the occurrence as soon as she got home and that she responded that the man had stuck his finger inside her privates, according to the court's observation that the victim's allegations were fully supported by her testimony.
