Intact hymen and absent recent-intercourse findings do not discredit credible testimony proving penetrative sexual assault.

On 11 December 2015, the minor daughter of the informant was allegedly induced by the appellant to accompany him to the house of Sabita Deb, where he forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault upon her

The incident was reported to the victim’s parents on the following day, and Khetri P.S. Case No. 190/2015 was registered under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted; the trial court framed a charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and the appellant pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim, her parents, her younger brother, two neighbouring witnesses, the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer.

The trial court convicted and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was sustainable on the basis of the victim’s testimony, supported by the surrounding and corroborative evidence, despite inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ accounts?

2. Whether the absence of evidence of recent sexual intercourse, an intact hymen, and the non-recovery of the victim’s anklet created reasonable doubt sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case?

The Court applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and considered the statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It relied on the principle that the credible and trustworthy testimony of a prosecutrix can, by itself, sustain a conviction and does not invariably require independent corroboration.

Relying on Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379, the Court held that complete penetration, emission of semen, or rupture of the hymen is not necessary to constitute rape; even slight penetration is sufficient, and an intact hymen or absence of recent intercourse does not negate the offence.

Medical evidence must be assessed with the oral testimony and is not necessarily conclusive where it does not affirmatively contradict the prosecution case.

The Court found the victim’s testimony consistent on the material particulars: the appellant called her while she was playing, took her to Sabita Deb’s house, gagged her and forcibly sexually assaulted her.

Her account was corroborated by her six-year-old brother, who saw the appellant take her towards Sabita Deb’s house, by Maya Kundu, who heard a girl crying, saw the victim emerge from the house in distress, and received her immediate disclosure, and by Sabita Deb’s evidence placing the appellant inside the house and observing the disordered bed.

The discrepancies concerning whether the incident was reported to the father by the victim’s mother or by Maya Kundu, and whether Sabita saw the victim when she returned, were treated as minor inconsistencies that did not affect the core prosecution narrative.

The Court also held that the Investigating Officer’s failure to seize the anklet did not negate Sabita’s testimony.

The medical evidence, although showing an intact hymen and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, recorded redness, tenderness and injuries suggestive of attempted forceful penetration; examined two days after the incident, that evidence did not contradict the victim’s account.

Accordingly, the Court considered the victim’s evidence to be of “sterling character” and sufficient to establish guilt.

It held that the victim’s reliable and substantially corroborated testimony proved the prosecution case, and that the minor inconsistencies, intact hymen, absence of recent intercourse, and non-recovery of the anklet did not create reasonable doubt.

Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

The lower court record was directed to be returned.