Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2023/DHC/000516 4.5. Ld. Prosecutor further submitted that much was argued on behalf of the appellant/accused that injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix are inconsistent with the allegations of insertion, whether of finger or penis. He submitted that the prosecutrix has been consistent in her testimony that the appellant/accused had rubbed her private part with his penis and had also inserted the finger/penis on which she felt pain ; even the slight penetration, which may not cause such injuries/bleeding as contended on behalf of the appellant/accused, is enough to be covered under Section 3 of the POCSO Act which defines penetrative sexual assault. It categorically mentions that the penetrative sexual assault does not require complete penetration and it could be to any extent and even the slight penetration would be sufficient to constitute an offence of penetrative sexual assault. Further, if the said offence is committed on a child below the age of 12 years as in the present case, same amounts to aggravated penetrative sexual assault as defined in Section 5 of POCSO Act and is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. Thus, the ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

My statement was recorded by the aunty. NU NU by I mean JIS SE SHU SHU KARTE HAI"

7.5. From the above it is clear that in her version to her mother/PW-2, the prosecutrix/PW-4 has described that the appellant/accused after taking his penis out of his pants, took her to a purple colour room and made her lie down on his knees and inserted his ungli (moti) in her su su wala place/vagina and she felt severe pain and cried. From the same, it is apparent that after unzipping himself and taking his penis out, the appellant/accused took the prosecutrix to the purple colour room and made the prosecutrix lie in between/on his knees and inserted his penis in the prosecutrix‟s vagina, which she described as ungli (moti). PW-4‟s description that she felt extreme pain and cried, further points towards the fact that the appellant/accused inserted his penis, more so, because, the prosecutrix has not made any mention of severe pain on the earlier occasion in kitchen. The prosecutrix/PW-4‟s description of the object inserted as „moti ungli‟ can be understood in the light of immense pain and trauma she underwent and also her age ; she distinguished it from only „ungli‟. Such description by the prosecutrix to her mother after the incident, appears to be quite in sync with her testimony before Court, "Nu Nu dali thi". There does not appear to be 2023/DHC/000516 any manipulation considering spontaneity of happenings, narration of the incident to mother, reporting of the same to police, the prosecutrix being taken to the hospital for medical examination, PW-2 narrating the prosecutrix‟s version to the police, in quick succession. Rather, the truthfulness of the mother/PW-2 in reporting the prosecutrix‟s version to the police, is reflected from her statement about insertion of „ungli (moti)‟ and that she did not substitute it with her own description.

9.0. Version of PW-4/prosecutrix that the appellant/accused had inserted penis in her vagina finds corroboration in the testimony of PW-2, who while reiterating the whole incident as given in her statement Ex. PW-2/A, stated that prosecutrix told her that „he took her to a room ..... he sat on the floor and made her lie between his knees and prosecutrix told me that the father of Anisha put a part which was thick like finger in her private part and she felt 2023/DHC/000516 pain.‟ In her cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that „I went to the hospital with my daughter for medical examination. Doctor made enquiries from me about the incident and I told the same. Doctor also made enquiries from my daughter.‟ She was not confronted with history recorded in MLC Ex. PW-

"in young children as the vagina is very small and hymen deeply situated, the adult penis cannot penetrate it. In rare cases of great violence, the organs may be forcibly introduced, causing rupture of the vaginal vault and associated visceral injuries. Usually, violence is not used and the penis placed either within the vulva or between the thighs. And as such, only redness and tenderness of the vulva may be caused. The hymen is usually intact............. There may be no signs or very few signs of general violence, since the child has no idea of the act is also unable to offer resistance.‖ (emphasis supplied) 10.3. Aforesaid injuries i.e. inflammation seen on labia and mucosa and small abrasion seen on the interior of left labia minora of the prosecutrix/PW-4, point towards the fact that when the appellant inserted the penis in her vagina, the prosecutrix started crying pursuant to severe pain, he let her go saving her of any further injury. Same when considered in the light of the above description of injuries which a child of such age may suffer, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that prosecutrix would have suffered extensive damage and bleeding, had there been insertion of penis, hardly carries any weight. Thus, the judgments in Rahim Beg and Ors (supra) ; Kallu Ahirwar (supra) and Sahajan Khan (supra) relied upon by the appellant are of no assistance to him. In these facts, even, judgment in Nikka Ram vs. State of H.P. Crl. App no. 321/2017, is of no help to the appellant.