Even the slightest contact with external genital organs is penetrative sexual assignment under POCSO ACT: HC

Last update:February 25, 2025, 15:33 Ist

The court’s observation came while confirmed the conviction of a man found guilty of sexually assaulting a four -year -old girl

The court emphasized the need to exercise caution in the cases filed because of the cravings between the parties. (Representative/Shutterstock)

The High Court Kerala (HC) said that even the slightest physical contact with the external genital organs of a minor rises to penetrative sexual aggression under Section 3 of the Law on Children’s Protection against sexual crimes in 2012 (POCO AC).

A division bank that includes justice PB Sush Kumar and justice Jobin Sebastian, based on Chenthamara c. State of Kerala (2008) and Kunjumon v. State of Kerala (2011), mentioned: “An attempt to penetrate into the vagina meant accessing access to access to access to access to access to access to access to access to The Access the vagina and even a slightest penetration in Vulva or Major would be “rape”, although there would be no vaginal penetration in such cases. “

The court’s observation came while confirmed the conviction of a man found guilty of sexually assaulting a four -year -old girl. The case arose when the minor complained of genital pain to his mother, who led it to a community health center, Kasaragod. The doctor’s suspicion with participating in sexual abuse led to the registration of a case after the problem in the Childline. The minor, belonging to the community of scheduled tribes, revealed that the accused, her neighbor, assaulted her sexually. The accused was accused under sections 376AB of the Indian Criminal Code (IPC), sections 5 (M) and 6 of the POCSO law and the relevant provisions of the 1989 law of scheduled castles and scheduled tribes (atrocities prevention).

The court in Kasaragod condemned the accused on the basis of the victim and medical evidence, sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of 25,000 Rs.

The accused/ appellant challenged the conviction in front of the High Court, arguing that the victim’s testimony was not reliable and that he supported a conclusive medical evidence of penetration. The accused also emphasized the medical reports that show that the victim’s hymen was intact, stating that the criminal prosecution failed to establish an essential ingredient of rape in accordance with section 376 CBC.

However, HC rejected this argument, clarifying that in section 375 CPI, as modified in 2013, penetration should not be limited to complete insertion, but includes contact in and around external female organs. The Court stressed that the definition of POCSO act of “penetrative sexual aggression” reflects the definition of the CPI. Although the POCSO act does not explicitly define “vagina”, the term can be interpreted using the wider definition of the CPI through section 2 (2) of Pocso Act. The bank considered that a restricted interpretation of the “vagina” would overcome the purpose of the Pocso act, which aims to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation.

“It is obvious that the vaginal entrance to the penis, namely the real passage of the penis into the vagina, is not essential to be rape and even the access of the penis to the vagina, without any entry of the penis in the vagina, if the penis receives physical contact. In that process of access with any of the external portions of the female genital organ, such as Vulva, Major, etc. The victim’s hymen, although not broken, cannot be kept the same against it.

Singling the credibility of the minor’s testimony, the court mentioned that the corroboration is not always necessary if the testimony is reliable and inspires the court’s confidence. “There is no law according to which her testimony can only be acting if the same is corroborated by other evidence. On the other hand, the victim in a rape case sits on a greater pedestal than a wounded witness, “said the court.

The court emphasized the need to exercise caution in the cases filed because of the cravings between the parties. However, he highlighted the absence of any animosity between the victim’s family and the accused who could suggest false implications in this case. “In the case of reach, there is no material to show that the victim or her mother have an ax to grind the accused,” he noted.

While rejecting the appeal, the court has changed the life penalty to 25 years of rigorous prison.