Biological father’s conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of minor daughter upheld based on victim’s credible testimony.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the rape of his seven-year-old biological daughter under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

On July 14, 2013, the complainant (mother) found the victim limping and bleeding from her private parts after she returned from a field where the appellant had gone to find her.

The victim (PW-1) testified that the appellant removed her garments and committed "bura kam" (wrongful act).

Medical evidence revealed redness and swelling of the internal organs, though the hymen remained intact.

The appellant was a habitual offender, having previously served seven years for the rape of another seven-year-old girl in 2005.

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of lack of FSL reports and sought a reduction of the life sentence to the statutory minimum of ten years.

1. Whether the testimony of a minor victim is sufficient for conviction in the absence of an FSL report or rupture of the hymen.

2. Whether the act committed by the appellant constitutes "penetrative sexual assault" under Section 3 of the POCSO Act despite the hymen being intact.

3. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be reduced to the minimum of ten years given the facts and the appellant's criminal antecedents.

Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which defines "penetrative sexual assault" to include penetration "to any extent" or the "manipulation of any part of the body" to cause penetration.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, establishing that the testimony of a sexual assault victim is vital and requires no corroboration if it inspires confidence.

Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan, a victim of rape is not an accomplice, and her evidence stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness.

State of M.P. v. Madan Lal regarding the dignity of a woman’s body as her "temple".

The Court held that the testimony of the seven-year-old victim (PW-1) was reliable, consistent, and corroborated by the medical report (Ex.P-9) showing internal injuries.

It rejected the defense argument that an intact hymen precluded a rape conviction, noting that under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, any extent of penetration or manipulation suffices for the charge.

The Court found the delay in filing the FIR was adequately explained by heavy rains and flooding.

The Court reasoned that the "temple" of the victim's body was violated by the very person meant to protect her, making the case unfit for mercy as the appellant was a repeat offender.

It held that the intactness of the hymen does not negate the offence of penetrative sexual assault.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment, ruling that the appellant's habitual nature and the gravity of the crime justified the maximum penalty.