Mere Penetration Without Hymen Rupture Constitutes Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Under Section 3 POCSO Act

The appellant, a tenant in the house of the victim’s grandmother (PW2), was accused of committing penetrative sexual assault on the six-year-old victim (PW1) on 13.01.2013

The prosecution alleged the appellant took the victim to a bathroom and committed the act, causing injuries

Following a trial (Sessions Case No. 6565/2016), the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on 16.03.2020 under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction citing contradictions in testimony and procedural lapses regarding the seizure of forensic evidence

The court primarily applied Section 3 of the POCSO Act, which defines penetrative sexual assault as penetration "to any extent," and Section 6 (as it stood in 2013), which prescribed punishment ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment

It relied on Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC regarding rape by a person in a position of trust or authority

Procedurally, the court looked at Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the hearing of the accused

The principle from Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala regarding when non-compliance with procedural steps vitiates proceedings

Regarding sentencing, it applied the dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which limits fixed-term sentences (if not for life) to a maximum of 14 years under the unamended Section 6

The court found that despite minor discrepancies in the victim's account of the exact spot of occurrence (toilet vs. back lane), her testimony was consistent and credible across her FIR, Section 164 statement, and oral evidence

Although the court noted that the seizure of forensic samples (undergarments and swabs) was poorly documented and unsatisfactory, it held that scientific evidence is merely corroborative and that the victim’s credible testimony, supported by medical evidence of a pubic abrasion, was sufficient for conviction

The court rejected the defense's argument regarding the intact hymen, clarifying that under Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, any penetration, however slight, constitutes the offense

Finally, the court observed a legal error in sentencing; because the incident occurred in 2013, the trial court could not award a term of 20 years, as the law then limited fixed-term sentences to a maximum of 14 years unless life imprisonment was awarded

The court partially allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence. The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced from 20 years to 14 years to align with the statutory limits and judicial precedents applicable at the time of the offense. All other directions, including the fine, remained unchanged