Penetrative sexual assault is complete upon penetration; ejaculation need not be proved.

The prosecution alleged that on 2 June 2018 the appellant lured the eight-year-old victim to a house where he was working and committed penetrative sexual assault.

The victim testified to the assault; her father said he found her and the appellant inside the house, and medical evidence recorded an injury to her external genitalia.

The victim’s age was supported by a school certificate.

The Special Court convicted the appellant under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000.

He appealed under Section 374 CrPC.

Whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act were sustainable on the evidence and in light of the appellant’s challenges

Whether the delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of semen or spermatozoa materially undermined the prosecution case

Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act covers aggravated penetrative sexual assault where the child is below twelve years of age, and Section 6 prescribes the punishment for that offence.

Penetration or insertion is sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault; ejaculation or recovery of semen is not essential.

Delay in lodging a complaint is significant where the circumstances indicate a possibility of embellishment or false implication; it is not fatal where satisfactorily explained.

The Court also treated the victim’s evidence as deserving substantial weight, observing that a victim of sexual assault has no reason, absent supporting circumstances, to falsely implicate an accused.

A statement recorded during investigation under Section 161 CrPC is subject to the restrictions in Section 162 and may be used to contradict its maker, not as substantive evidence.

The Court found the victim’s account of the assault consistent with the father’s evidence that he saw the victim and appellant inside the house and with the medical evidence of genital injury.

The child witness’s evidence also supported the circumstances in which the appellant took the victim away.

The Court accepted the explanation that the victim was taken for medical examination before the complaint was lodged and that the family had to press the police to register the case; it therefore found the delay satisfactorily explained.

The absence of semen did not discredit the allegation because the appellant fled when the father arrived, and ejaculation was not necessary to prove penetration.

The Court rejected the remaining challenges concerning the victim’s investigative statement and medical records, finding that the disputed statement was not shown to have been recorded and that the Accident Register had been produced.

It dismissed the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000, cancelled the appellant’s bail bond, and directed the Trial Court to secure him to serve the remaining sentence.