GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has issued a significant ruling clarifying the parameters of penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, emphasising that even slight penetration suffices to invoke charges under the Act, irrespective of the presence or absence of hymen tear.
In a recent judgment, the High Court overturned a trial court's decision to acquit an accused in a case registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, stating that the trial court had incorrectly framed the charge under Section 4 of the Act, instead of Section 6.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Justice Kaushik Goswami, presiding over a single-judge bench, asserted that the absence of visible signs of injury does not negate allegations of penetrative sexual assault. He emphasised that any degree of insertion constitutes penetrative sexual assault under the law, rendering hymen tear irrelevant.
The case pertained to an incident where a 13-year-old girl alleged that she was sexually assaulted by the accused while living at his residence. Despite her testimony, the trial court acquitted the accused based on the lack of physical injuries documented by a medical examination.
Challenging the trial court's decision, the State of Mizoram appealed to the High Court, arguing that the victim's testimony should be given due credence, especially considering her age and the nature of the offense.
The High Court concurred, highlighting the victim's consistent testimony regarding experiencing pain when the accused inserted his finger into her vagina. The court stressed that superficial digital insertion, as described by the victim, may not result in detectable physical injuries.
ALSO READ: ECI Imposes Silence Period For Assam Lok Sabha Elections 2024
Consequently, the High Court deemed the trial court's findings erroneous and unsustainable, asserting that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the matter should have been tried under Section 6 of the Act, which prescribes stricter punishment.
Setting aside the trial court's judgment, the High Court remanded the case for reframing of charges and further proceedings. It directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months from the appearance of the accused.
