‘Penetration to any extent’ sufficient for aggravated POCSO assault; Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds 20-year sentence despite no injuries

On 27 April 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, the appellant allegedly took the victim, a child born on 7 August 2012 and therefore below twelve years of age, into his room.

PW-2 Anu saw the appellant taking the child inside and later saw the child emerge with difficulty in walking and cleaning his anal area after removing his pants.

The child subsequently disclosed to his parents that the appellant had made him lie on a bed, removed his pants, and inserted his private part into the child’s anus.

The matter was promptly reported to the landlord’s son, who informed the police; the FIR was registered under Sections 377 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and 10 years respectively, with concurrent sentences.

The appellant challenged the conviction, principally contending that the absence of physical injuries, alleged inconsistencies, and supposed enmity with PW-2 rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault upon the child, despite the absence of anal injuries or other conclusive medical signs of penetration.

Whether the evidence of the child, his parents, neighbouring witnesses, and the medical and forensic evidence was sufficiently reliable and corroborative to sustain the conviction.

Whether the alleged enmity between PW-2 Anu and the appellant created a reasonable possibility of false implication.

Whether the offence amounted to aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 3, 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act, attracting the statutory minimum sentence of 20 years.

The Court applied Section 3 of the POCSO Act, which defines penetrative sexual assault to include penetration of the penis, to any extent, into the anus of a child.

Section 5(m), which classifies penetrative sexual assault upon a child below twelve years as aggravated penetrative sexual assault; and Section 6, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The Court also considered Section 377 IPC in relation to the alleged carnal intercourse against the order of nature.

The absence of injuries is not by itself fatal where the testimony of the victim and surrounding circumstances are credible and are corroborated by other evidence.

The Court further relied on the statutory presumption and evidentiary framework of the POCSO Act, though no specific provision was expressly discussed in the judgment, and assessed the prompt reporting, natural testimony, medical evidence, and DNA evidence cumulatively.

The Court found the testimony of the child and the surrounding witnesses credible and consistent.

PW-2 had directly observed the appellant taking the child into his room and had seen the child emerge in a frightened condition, walking abnormally and cleaning his anal area; PW-6, PW-7, the landlord, and the child’s parents provided natural and prompt corroboration.

The child’s age was established through his school birth certificate, proving that he was below twelve years of age.

Although the medical examination revealed no anal tear, abrasion, bleeding, or other visible injury, the Court held that penetration “to any extent” falls within Section 3 of the POCSO Act and that the absence of injury does not negate the offence.

The forensic evidence further supported the prosecution: semen was detected on the victim’s pants and the appellant’s underwear, and the DNA profile from the victim’s pants matched the appellant’s blood sample.

The alleged motive for false implication was rejected because it rested only on inconsistent defence suggestions and was not supported by evidence; there was also no demonstrated enmity between the appellant and the victim’s family or PW-6.

On the cumulative assessment of the oral, medical, and forensic evidence, the Court held that the prosecution had established aggravated penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC, holding that the victim’s age, the credible ocular evidence, prompt reporting, and forensic corroboration established aggravated penetrative sexual assault notwithstanding the absence of visible injuries.

The sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, together with 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000 under Section 377 IPC, with substantive sentences running concurrently, was affirmed.

The record was directed to be returned to the Trial Court, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.