Sexual assault: Semen discharge not mandatory below POCSO.

The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom whereas upholding the judgment of the trial court docket held that mere penetration with male genitalia or with every other object is sufficient for committing penetrative sexual assault.  Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy additional deciphering Part 3 of the POCSO Act noticed that semen discharge isn’t important for constituting penetrative sexual assault.

Thus, the court docket held that if the semen isn’t discovered on the time of examination of the rape survivor, it doesn’t indicate that the sexual assault on the sufferer isn’t dedicated. Even with out ejaculation of semen, if the proof on file exhibits that there’s penetration of penis or any object or a part of the physique of the accused into the vagina of the minor lady, it’s adequate to represent an offence of penetrative sexual assault as outlined below Part 3 of the POCSO Act, the court docket stated.

Arguments of the events:

The accused contended that the prosecution had a sense of enmity towards him as he refused to promote the property that the sufferer’s mom demanded from him and subsequently, they filed a fallacious case towards him.

Whereas, in response to the prosecution the sufferer (minor lady) was enjoying in the back of the home along with her elder sister and different kids. The accused baited the sufferer by providing chocolate to her and when different kids weren’t paying consideration, the accused took the sufferer to his home and dedicated the offence.   

When the elder sister of the sufferer knowledgeable her mom, she rushed in direction of the accused residence and located that the accused was mendacity to her daughter. Because the mom raised her voice, the accused pushed her off the way in which and ran away from there.

The counsel for the accused stated that as per the medical examination, there was no proof discovered proving sexual assault as semen was not detected in the course of the examination. He additionally contended that other than the sufferer and her mom, there was no supporting proof and it couldn’t be relied upon.

The A.P.P. argued that no mom would play with the modesty of her daughter for the sake of land or for taking revenge. He additionally contended that the medical experiences supplied that the sufferer’s hymen was torn and likewise detected blood.

He stated that the trial court docket has rightly determined the case primarily based on the proof and it does hinder any authorized provisions.

Judgment:

Hon’ble Excessive Courtroom of Andhra Pradesh after rigorously analyzing the details, proof, witnesses and arguments of each events the court docket rejected the rivalry of the accused that he has been falsely charged for not promoting the property that the sufferer’s mom demanded.    

The court docket in view of Part 3 of the POCSO Act held that the accused had dedicated penetrative sexual assault with the minor lady as there have been no legitimate grounds to dismiss the sufferer’s and her mom’s statements. Accordingly, the court docket upheld the choice of the trial court docket and dismissed the attraction filed by the accused.