The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice B Murugesan rejected the step-father's evidence that there was no medical evidence to suggest sexual assault. The court observed that medical evidence was only supportive and not determinative. The court added that the absence of visible genital injury, the absence of spermatozoa on the dress of the victim, absence of a damaged hymen would not lead to an automatic conclusion of absence of sexual abuse or sexual assault.

“Therefore, having regard to the definition of 'penetrative sexual assault' under S.3 POCSO Act, 2012, and the aforesaid decision, we have no hesitation to hold that the medical evidence is only supportive but not determinative and that the absence of observable genital injury or any other related injury on the body of the child victim, or the absence of spermatozoa of the accused on the dress or body of the child victim, or the absence of torn/damaged hymen of the child victim, or the absence of any other physically demonstrable effects of the crime would not lead to an automatic conclusion of absence of sexual abuse or sexual assault,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the stepfather challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the POCSO Court under Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(1) of IPC.

As per the prosecution, when the victim's mother had gone to work one day, the step-father and the victim were at the house. The father sent a cousin away to call a boy and immediately thereafter took the victim inside the room, undressed her, made her lie on the floor, squeezed her chest, placed his penis between her thighs, and inserted his finger into her vagina.

At this time, the cousin boy came back to the house and found the door locked. When he looked inside the room through the window, he found the father lying naked on the victim child. He rushed to his home and informed his mother, who then called the victim's mother and informed her. The victim's mother came home and enquired with her, and it was informed that the accused had committed such sexual assault earlier on three occasions and threatened to kill the victim and her mother if she disclosed it to anyone.

Based on a complaint by the victim's mother, a case was registered. After trial, the Special Court found the father guilty for the offences and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the father argued that there was no injury to the victim, even as per medical records, and thus the case of penetrative sexual assault would fail. The father alleged that the testimony of the cousin boy cannot be relied on as it was tutored. He also alleged that there were contradictions in the statements of other witnesses and since the foundational facts were not proved, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would not arise. The father thus argued that the order of the Special Court should be reversed and he should be acquitted of all charges.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that mere absence of injury would not rescue the accused from penal consequences when the testimony of the child was credible. It was submitted that a single penetration without causing any injury to the victim or without resulting in ejaculation would be sufficient to establish the offence of penetrative sexual assault. The State also argued that the evidence of the witnesses was consistent and corroborated each other. Thus, it was argued that the prosecution had established material particulars and since there was nothing on the accused's side to rebut the presumption, the criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The court noted that as per the definition of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, only the conduct of the accused and not the physical or mental harm caused to the child would be considered. The court added that any emphasis on the visible injury would be against the definition of penetrative sexual assault and would be a misinterpretation of the statute.

The court also added that the consistent evidence of the victim or evidence of any other eyewitness would take precedence over medical evidence. In the present case, the court noted that the evidence of the victim had been consistent from beginning to end, winning the confidence of the judicial mind and requiring no further corroboration.

The court concluded that the father had committed penetrative sexual assault on the child, the child was below 12 years of age, and the accused was the stepfather of the child. Thus, the court opined that the conviction and sentence imposed on the father for aggravated penetrative sexual assault were proper. The appeal was thus dismissed.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. K. Prabhu, for Mr.N.Pragalathan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandiyan, Counsel for the State of TN (Crl.Side)

Case Title: R v Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 462

Case No: CRL A(MD) NO. 1032 of 2024