Introduction
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court clarified that “external rubbing” does not qualify as “penetrative sexual assault” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
Facts of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman on behalf of her daughter, a minor. According to the allegation, the accused, forcibly took the child onto his lap, carried her into a room and attempted to insert his penis into her anus while the child’s mother was asleep. The trial court accepted the child’s testimony and convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment plus a fine.
On appeal, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, overturned the conviction and ordered the appellant’s release.
What the Court Says
The High Court noted significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim and her parents. The Court further pointed out that the medical evidence failed to support the prosecution’s claim of penetration. On pelvic examination, no injury was found on the vaginal or labial region. Only redness and swelling near the anal opening were observed.
The examining doctor also admitted during cross-examination that the redness and swelling could equally result from a fall on a hard surface. In light of this, the Court concluded that medical evidence “rules out a case of rape” and found no reliable evidence of penetration.
The Bench emphasized that in absence of any medical evidence of penetration, it would not be safe to uphold a conviction based solely on the testimony of a child witness, particularly given the child’s own admission that she had been “tutored” by her parents and the investigating officer before giving her deposition. The Court observed that treating external rubbing as “penetrative sexual assault,” as defined under Section 3 of POCSO, was a gross misdirection by the trial court.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implications of the Judgment
This decision sets an important precedent on how courts may interpret the definition of “penetrative sexual assault” under POCSO. Where medical evidence does not support penetration, courts may be reluctant to convict solely on uncorroborated testimony, especially if there are credibility issues or contradictions in the witness statements.
The ruling underscores that “external rubbing,” without any established penetration, does not meet the statutory definition of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of POCSO. It signals to lower courts the importance of requiring medical or other corroborative evidence in similar cases.
This judgment may influence future POCSO cases. Defence legal professionals are likely to cite it where medical reports show no injuries or lack of penetration. Prosecution must now ensure that their case includes credible, corroborated medical evidence before charging for penetrative assault under POCSO.
The ruling also raises broader questions about how child-witness testimony is treated when a minor’s age and vulnerability are involved. Where there is reason to doubt reliability, including claims of tutoring, courts may be more cautious in relying solely on such testimony.
