Cart is empty 
In the matter of Ram Nawal Vs. State., the Delhi High Court on 4th January 2022 upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to a man for raping a 5 year old minor victim in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’) case. The Court observed that penetration is sufficient in order to constitute an offence under Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) of IPC and Section 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act and that presence of the semen is not necessary.
It is the case of the prosecution that the victim girl aged 5 years narrated to her mother that the appellant/accused took her to his room, removed her panty, inserted his finger and male organ in her vagina. FIR came to be registered under Sections 376(f)(i)(j) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court found the accused guilty ad sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/-.
The appellant challenged the impugned judgment in the High Court.
Counsel for the appellant contended that the minor victim is being tutored by parents who were inimical to the appellant. It was further contended that even though the prosecutrix shows injury and tear on her vaginal area and bloodstains on her undergarment, there is nothing to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. No recoveries have been made from the appellant and even in the FSL report no semen has been detected which could have connected the appellant to the offence alleged.
Observations of the Court:
- To constitute an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, penetration is sufficient, and it is not necessary that semen needs to be essentially present.
- The prosecutrix though a minor child of impressionable age soon after the incident told her mother when she was in pain and the fact that she was sexually assaulted is duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record and has been cross examined at length before the Trial Court.
- The victim’s statement to the mother, statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and before the Court are consistent which are sufficient to prove the offence alleged against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court dismissed the Appeal.
– Vaishali Jain, Advocate & Associate – Child Safety at Work