[POCSO Act] Mere Absence Of Injuries On Victim’s Private Parts No Ground To Hold That Penetrative Sexual Assault Did Not Take Place: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere absence of injuries on victim’s private parts cannot be a ground to hold that penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act did not take place.

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 observed that the man, who was the minor’s neighbor, was not able to shake the version of the prosecution which had successfully proved its case beyond 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.

It added that the man failed to successfully rebut the presumption raised against him under the POCSO Act by leading evidence or discrediting the evidence of the prosecution.

Justice Bansal dismissed the man’s appeal challenging his conviction vide order dated September 18, 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The court also upheld the trial court order sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years under POCSO Act and three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 and Section 342 of the IPC respectively.

“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 noted that the victim, in her statement recorded by the police under section 164 of CrPC and to the doctor before the MLC, clearly stated that the man had inserted his finger inside her private parts.

“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 court also observed that the victim’s statements was duly corroborated by the statement of her mother who clearly deposed that immediately after the victim came home, she asked her about the incident to which she replied that the man had inserted his finger inside her private parts.

Title: RANJEET KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 683

Click Here To Read Order