Back
Rules Medical Evidence Essential To Prove Penetration In POCSO Act Cases
In a significant ruling, the has modified the conviction of an accused-appellant, emphasizing that under the cannot override fundamental medical findings. The division bench, comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, set aside the life imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational elements of .
Case Background and Procedural Timeline
The case arose from a incident at Police Station Rohaniya, Varanasi, where the appellant was accused of assaulting a five-year-old child. The initial (FIR) alleged that the child had bled following the encounter. However, a medical examination conducted the same night recorded no external or internal injuries, nor was there any evidence of trauma to the genital region. Despite this, a had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, relying heavily on a statement recorded under two months post-incident.
Arguments Presented
The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary to invoke , which allows for a presumption of guilt. Counsel for the appellant highlighted that the absence of injuries during the medical examination directly contradicted the claim of penetration. Conversely, the State argued that the testimony of the victim should be held in high regard, suggesting that medical corroboration is not strictly necessary for a conviction in cases of sexual violence against children.
Legal Analysis: The Limits of Statutory Presumptions
The High Court underscored that while Section 29 and establish a , they are not automatic. The court held that the prosecution must first prove the "" before the burden shifts to the accused. The bench clarified that it is impermissible to use reverse-onus provisions of the POCSO Act to secure a conviction under the , as such an approach violates of fairness under .
The court further applied the principle of
"
,"
determining that while the allegation of penetration was unsubstantiated by medical evidence and inherently inconsistent with the child's earliest statements, the facts did establish an assault with sexual intent.
Key Observations
The High Court shared these pivotal insights:
"In prosecutions for rape or , the absence of injuries is not, by itself, decisive; however, where the prosecution itself relies upon a specific allegation of bodily injury or bleeding and the contemporaneous medical examination completely negatives such assertion without any satisfactory explanation, the inconsistency assumes considerable significance."
"The statutory presumption does not require the Court to mechanically accept the prosecution version as gospel truth, nor does it relieve the Court of its obligation to evaluate the credibility, probability and inherent consistency of the prosecution evidence."
"The rule has never been accepted as a sound rule of evidence in India."
Decision and Practical Implications
The High Court modified the conviction from to aggravated sexual assault under , read with and 9(n), punishable under . Recognizing that the appellant had already served five years and eight months in custody, the Court sentenced him to the time already undergone and affirmed a fine of ₹50,000. This ruling serves as a vital precedent, ensuring that the gravity of sexual assault allegations does not preclude the standard judicial requirement for consistency between and .
