In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the legal principle that the rupture of the hymen is not essential to establish penetrative sexual assault. Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a criminal revision petition (Crl. R.P No. 1091 of 2024) filed by the accused, seeking discharge in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court observed that the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial, despite the defense’s arguments challenging the validity of the charges.
Background
The case pertains to an incident on January 26, 2023, involving allegations of sexual assault against a minor girl. According to the prosecution, the accused, a close relative of the victim, kidnapped her from her parents’ lawful custody and took her to a country boat near the Malankara Dam area in Idukki. There, he allegedly committed penetrative sexual assault.
The accused was charged with multiple offenses, including Sections 363, 354A(1)(ii), 341, 376(1)(3), and 506(i) of the IPC and Sections 4(1) r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(o), 10 r/w 9(p), and 8 r/w 7 of the POCSO Act.
The defence argued that the allegations were fabricated, citing a longstanding enmity between the families. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sachin Ramesh, emphasized that the medical examination report indicated the victim’s hymen was intact, asserting this undermined the claim of penetrative sexual assault. The prosecution, led by Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth, contended that the evidence, including the victim’s testimony, made out a prima facie case.
Legal Issues
The case raised significant legal questions, including:
1. Reliance on Medical Evidence: Whether the absence of hymenal rupture can negate the claim of penetrative sexual assault.
2. Prima Facie Evidence and Discharge: The parameters under which a court can allow a discharge petition in cases involving POCSO and IPC provisions.
3. Fabrication of Charges: The impact of alleged personal enmity between the families on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Observations
In rejecting the plea, Justice Badharudeen made key observations regarding the admissibility and weight of evidence:
– On Hymenal Rupture: The court underscored that the absence of hymenal rupture does not preclude a finding of penetrative sexual assault. The judgment emphasized:
“Rupture of the hymen is not a mandate to establish penetrative sexual assault or coitus. Settled legal principles affirm that such findings are not conclusive proof of absence of assault.”
– On Prima Facie Evidence: Justice Badharudeen noted that the victim’s statements and other prosecution materials prima facie established the allegations. The court highlighted that the contention regarding fabrication and enmity were speculative and required trial for proper adjudication.
– On the Scope of Discharge: The judgment reaffirmed that discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is permissible only if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case. Here, the prosecution’s evidence was found sufficient to justify a full trial.
Decision
The High Court upheld the Special Court’s order denying discharge and dismissed the revision petition. Justice Badharudeen ruled that the prosecution’s evidence, including the victim’s testimony, warranted a trial. The court also reiterated that legal principles should prioritize protecting survivors’ rights while ensuring a fair process for the accused.
The court directed the jurisdictional court to proceed with the trial based on the available evidence, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness. The dismissal of the discharge petition strengthens the judiciary’s stand on addressing sensitive cases under the POCSO Act with due seriousness.
