Court Affirms 20-Year Sentence for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Despite Lack of Conclusive Medical Evidence
In a significant judgment, the Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment of Satish Ray (Mandal) for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench, comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, delivered the verdict on May 26, 2026, rejecting the appellant's plea that the conviction was unsustainable due to lack of corroborative medical evidence.
The appellant had been sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) in Barpeta for committing the offense against a 9-year-old girl. The appellant's counsel argued that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) used the ambiguous term "bad act," which did not conclusively prove sexual intercourse. Furthermore, the appellant contested the medical evidence that showed the victim's hymen was intact and no injuries were found on her private parts.
However, the High Court emphasized that the testimony of the victim, who clearly stated that the appellant had inserted his penis into her vagina, was cogent and trustworthy. The court noted that corroborative medical evidence is not always mandatory, especially when the victim's testimony is consistent and reliable. The judgment highlighted that slight penetration suffices to constitute an offense under Section 3 of the POCSO Act and that oral testimony can take precedence over medical evidence unless the latter completely rules out the occurrence of the alleged act.
The court further clarified that the term "bad act," as used by the victim in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, could denote sexual assault based on the attending facts and circumstances. The judgment also distinguished the present case from previous decisions, such as the Shah Alam case, where the contextual corroboration was lacking.
In its analysis, the court referenced several Supreme Court precedents asserting that the absence of hymen rupture or physical injuries does not negate the occurrence of rape. The court concluded that, despite the medical evidence suggesting no recent sexual intercourse, the victim's detailed testimony substantiated the occurrence of slight penetration, fulfilling the legal criteria for penetrative sexual assault.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on prioritizing victim testimony in sexual assault cases, affirming that legal interpretations of assault extend beyond the physical manifestations evident in medical examinations.
Bottom line:-
Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(AB) IPC upheld based on the victim's testimony, corroborated by attending circumstances and legal principles, even in the absence of medical evidence conclusively proving penetration.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 Section 6, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(AB), Criminal Procedure Code Section 164
