Penetration Sufficient to commit Rape, Presence Of Semen Not Necessary: Delhi HC upholds conviction, sentence awarded to man for raping a 5 year old minor victim under POCSO
In the recent case of Ram Nawal v/s State the High Court of Delhi ruled that, Penetration is Sufficient to commit Rape and Presence Of Semen is Not Necessary.
Mr. Nitish Chaudhary advocate for the appellant contended that at the time of alleged incident the victim was a 5 years old child of impressionable age and thus the appellant has been implicated by tutoring her by her parents who were inimical to the appellant. Even though as per the case of the prosecution, the MLC of the prosecutrix showed injury and tear on her vaginal area and bloodstains on her undergarment, however, there is nothing to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. No recoveries have been made from the appellant and even in the FSL report no semen has been detected which could have connected the appellant to the offence alleged. Further, it is the case of the prosecutrix that the appellant took her to his room and to corroborate the version no bed sheet etc. were recovered to show that the appellant was the one who was involved in the alleged offence. Further, no public witness was associated at the time of seizure and arrest and there is no other eye witness who supports the claim of the prosecutrix that it was the appellant who took her inside the room.
The single judge bench of Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta noted that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, penetration is sufficient and it is not necessary that semen needs to be essentially present. Moreover, contention of the counsel for the appellant that no public witness was associated at the time of recovery deserves to be rejected for the reason no recovery was made at the instance of the appellant and the clothes of the victim were handed over by her parents to the Investigating Agency, which were duly seized and sealed and FSL report received.
While dismissing the appeal the court found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
