The Andhra Pradesh High Court while upholding the judgment of the trial court held that mere penetration with male genitalia or with any other object is enough for committing penetrative sexual assault.  Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy further interpreting Section 3 of the POCSO Act observed that semen discharge is not essential for constituting penetrative sexual assault.
Thus, the court held that if the semen is not found at the time of examination of the rape survivor, it does not imply that the sexual assault on the victim is not committed. Even without ejaculation of semen, if the evidence on record shows that there is penetration of penis or any object or part of the body of the accused into the vagina of the minor girl, it is sufficient to constitute an offence of penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, the court said.
Arguments of the parties:
The accused contended that the prosecution had a feeling of enmity against him as he refused to sell the property that the victim’s mother demanded from him and therefore, they filed a fallacious case against him.
Whereas, according to the prosecution the victim (minor girl) was playing at the back of the house with her elder sister and other children. The accused baited the victim by offering chocolate to her and when other children were not paying attention, the accused took the victim to his house and committed the offence.
When the elder sister of the victim informed her mother, she rushed towards the accused home and found that the accused was lying to her daughter. As the mother raised her voice, the accused pushed her off the way and ran away from there.
The counsel for the accused said that as per the medical examination, there was no evidence found proving sexual assault as semen was not detected during the examination. He also contended that apart from the victim and her mother, there was no supporting evidence and it could not be relied upon.
The A.P.P. argued that no mother would play with the modesty of her daughter for the sake of land or for taking revenge. He also contended that the medical reports provided that the victim’s hymen was torn and also detected blood.
He said that the trial court has rightly decided the case based on the evidence and it does obstruct any legal provisions.
Judgment:
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh after carefully examining the facts, evidence, witnesses and arguments of both parties the court rejected the contention of the accused that he has been falsely charged for not selling the property that the victim’s mother demanded.
The court in view of Section 3 of the POCSO Act held that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault with the minor girl as there were no valid grounds to dismiss the victim’s and her mother’s statements. Accordingly, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.
