Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has issued a landmark judgment clarifying the parameters of penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, emphasizing that even minor penetration is sufficient to trigger charges under the Act, irrespective of the presence or absence of a tear hymen.
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Justice overturned the decision of the trial court to acquit the accused in a case registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Law, and determined that the trial court incorrectly worded the charge according to Section 4 of the law, instead of Section 6.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Justice Kaushik Goswami, heading a single-judge bench, argued that the absence of visible injury marks does not negate the allegations of penetrative sexual assault. He emphasized that any degree of penetration constitutes penetrative sexual assault under the law, making hymen rupture irrelevant.
The case referred to an incident in which a 13-year-old girl claimed that she was sexually assaulted by the accused while she was living in his house. Despite her testimony, the trial court acquitted the accused based on the lack of physical injuries documented in a medical examination.
In the appeals against the decision of the Court of First Instance, the State of Mizoram appealed to the High Court on the grounds that adequate credence must be given to the victim’s testimony, especially considering her age and the nature of the offense.
The High Court agreed and emphasized the victim’s consistent testimony of feeling pain when the defendant inserted his finger into her vagina. The court emphasized that superficial digital penetration, as described by the victim, may not cause identifiable physical injuries.
Also Read: ECI Imposes Silence Period For Assam Lok Sabha Elections 2024
Therefore, the Supreme Court considered the findings of the lower court to be wrong and unreasonable, and determined that the accused committed a penetrative sexual assault according to Section 5(n) of the POCSO Law. Therefore, the matter should have been discussed according to section 6 of the law, which stipulates a severe punishment.
Upon annulment of the lower court’s verdict, the High Court returned the case for reassignment of charges and continued proceedings. It ordered the lower court to end the procedure within three months from the defendant’s appearance.
