[POCSO Act] Absence Of Injuries On Victim's Private Parts Doesn't Disprove Penetrative Sexual Assault: Delhi High Court

Justice Amit Bansal while upholding the conviction of the appellant observed that,

“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 case involved a conviction against the appellant (the accused) for sexual offenses against a four-and-a-half-year-old victim. The appellant was sentenced to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment for the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, three years for Section 363 of the IPC, and six months for Section 342 of the IPC.

Advocate Gautam Khazanchi appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Pradeep Gahalot (APP) appeared for the Respondent.

The defense argued that there were material contradictions in the victim's statements and that the prosecution's case was based solely on the victim's testimony, which lacked sufficient corroboration. They argued that the absence of certain injuries and the condition of the hymen suggested that the case should be treated as one of "touching" rather than penetration, which would have a different level of punishment under the POCSO Act.

The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the victim's various statements supported the prosecution's case without inconsistencies. They emphasized that the victim's statement during the trial, her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, and the statement given to the doctor during the medical examination are consistent in describing the accused's actions. They also argued that a conviction under Section 376 of the IPC can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it is found to be reliable and trustworthy, without the need for further corroboration.

The Court reiterated that the victim's statements, both recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and given during trial, have consistently detailed the same incident of the appellant inserting his finger inside her private parts. The Court discussed the alleged inconsistency between the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and her other statements, and it emphasized that minor contradictions, especially considering the victim's young age, do not render her testimony unreliable.

“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 Court also cited legal precedents to support its stance that minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance and that the credibility of the witness should be evaluated based on the overall context of the case.

The Court further underscored the reliability of the victim's statement, her ability to withstand cross-examination, and the corroboration provided by her mother's statement.

The Court addressed the absence of injuries on the victim's private parts, explaining that the absence of injuries doesn't necessarily negate the offense and that injury presence depends on various factors.

“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.”

Additionally, the Court highlighted the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and concluded that the appellant failed to rebut this presumption by leading evidence or discrediting the prosecution's evidence.

The Court found no infirmity in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction.

Cause Title: Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi

Click here to read/download Judgment