In this case, the accused-appellant was convicted for committing rape on a 4-year-old minor girl.
As per medical report, there was no trace of semen and even hymen was intact. In the report, a pubic hair of the appellant was found.
The Court said that the accused’s conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it is credible.
On that basis, the High Court convicted the accused for rape on a minor victim despite the fact that the medical report did not establish the accused’s guilt.
“In a tender age, there is no possibility for a child to have an idea about a sexual assault and according to the child, a physical assault like hitting or pinching is a matter of concern. In the instant case, going by the description given by the victim child about the incident and carefully considering the evidence of P. Ws.2 & 7 and the medical and forensic science laboratory reports marked as Ex.Ps.2 & 5, we are convinced that the victim child was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. The victim child was four years old at the time of incident and hence, the offence of aggressive penetrative sexual assault is clearly established under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012,” the Court observed while upholding the conviction order of trial court.
Source: Barandbench
