Minimal Penetration and Genital Redness Sufficient to Establish Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 4½-year-old girl

On 25.04.2022, the appellant lured the victim to his house with the promise of chocolate

The victim later returned home crying, disclosed to her mother (PW-3) that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and bit her, and discarded her clothing in distress

Medical examination (PW-6) revealed no hymenal rupture but noted "redness and tenderness" around the hymen and genital findings "suggestive of vaginal manipulation"

The appellant contended the case was a fabrication due to a land dispute and argued that the lack of hymenal injury precluded a conviction under Section 6

1. Whether the absence of hymenal rupture or evidence of forceful violence on the private parts negates a finding of "penetrative sexual assault" under the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the testimony of a child victim, corroborated by medical findings of "manipulation" and "redness," is sufficient for conviction despite a delay in filing the FIR.

Section 3(a) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which defines penetrative sexual assault as penetration of the penis "to any extent"

State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29, establishing that even the "slightest penetration" within the labia majora constitutes rape without requiring hymenal rupture

Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635, the court held that the trustworthy testimony of a victim can be the sole basis for conviction and that medical absence of injury does not necessarily belie the victim's claim

Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu regarding the promptness of FIRs to prevent embellishment

The court found the 5-year-old victim’s testimony (PW-2) rational and credible, noting she accurately identified the act of penetration

Although the defense argued the Doctor's opinion (PW-6) found no "recent sexual intercourse," the court interpreted the finding of "vaginal manipulation" and "redness/tenderness" around the hymen as consistent with Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the POCSO Act, which requires penetration only "to any extent"

The court reasoned that in a 4-year-old, even minute or partial penetration may not rupture the hymen but causes the specific external redness observed

The court dismissed the "land dispute" motive as unsubstantiated by documents and rejected the FIR delay argument, noting the emotional state of the parents and the reality of rural reporting

The appellant's conduct—fleeing when questioned—further corroborated the prosecution's case

The court found the evidence of the victim (PW-2) and her mother (PW-3), coupled with the medical findings of "manipulation," sufficient to sustain the conviction

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment was upheld