The Andhra Pradesh High Court was reviewing a rape case where under the POCSO proving sexual assault is important for such a case. The High Court conveyed that the proof of penetration is proof enough and that proof of ejaculation is not required.
The Court clearly stated that in the case of penetrative sexual assault, the only proof that a court of law is concerned with is mere penetration and not whether ejaculation took place.
In the 2016 case, the convict was looking at ten years of imprisonment for raping a six-year-old girl child. The convict's counsel argued that the medical report did not find any semen sample and therefore there was no proof of sexual intercourse having taken place.
This is where the Andhra Pradesh High Court made its view known that only proof of penetration is enough to prove a crime of penetrative sexual assault and proof of ejaculation is not needed.
Proving Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act
The convict's counsel argued that the trial court did not make a proper examination of the medical records.
The prosecution put forward that blood had been found on the victim's vagina and her hymen were also torn.
The counsel argued that the victim's mother who was an eyewitness of the crime had a personal vendetta against him for not selling off his property to her. Therefore she was making false allegations against him.
The court after hearing this line of argument held that a mother would not risk the modesty of her daughter to pursue a vendetta against someone. The court, therefore, rejected the counsel's arguments as penetrative sexual assault against the girl child had already been proven.
The court declared that after examination of the evidence placed before them, they ruled the case as a case of penetrative sexual assault by Section 3 of the POCSO Act.
Suggested Reading: Minor Boy Raped A Minor Girl: Are These The Standards To Live By?