Rupture Of Hymen Not Necessary To Prove Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court

While upholding the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl, the Delhi High Court has observed that rupture of the hymen is not necessary to establish the offence of penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by Rajender Sharma against his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(f) IPC. While the Court upheld the conviction, it reduced the sentence from 20 years' rigorous imprisonment to 14 years.

The prosecution case was that on January 13, 2013, the accused, who was a tenant in the victim's house at Sangam Vihar, Delhi, committed penetrative sexual assault on the six-year-old child. An FIR was registered the next day based on the child's statement.

Before the High Court, the accused argued that there were material contradictions in the victim's statements regarding the place of occurrence and that the scientific evidence and seizure of samples were unreliable. It was also contended that the medical examination showed the child's hymen was intact, which contradicted the allegation of penetrative sexual assault.

Rejecting the contention, the Court referred to Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act and held that even minimal penetration is sufficient to constitute penetrative sexual assault.

“I am afraid, I disagree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused because 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 said.

It further noted that although there were deficiencies in the seizure and proof of forensic samples, scientific evidence was only corroborative in nature and the testimony of the child victim remained credible and trustworthy.

At the same time, the Court found that the trial court could not have imposed a sentence of 20 years under the version of Section 6 of the POCSO Act applicable at the time of the offence in 2013.

Accordingly, while affirming the conviction, the High Court reduced the substantive sentence from 20 years to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Appearance: Mr. Dhruva Bhagat, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Rahul Rathi Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Advocate with Ms. Mansi Rao, Advocate for Victim

Case title: Rajender Sharma v. State

Case no.: CRL.A. 610/2020

Click here to read order