Slightest penetration of a male sexual organ inside the vagina constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Meghalaya HC

Case: Swill Lhuid vs State of Meghalaya & Ors

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh

Recently, the Meghalaya High Court held that even the slightest penetration of a male sexual organ inside the vagina will constitute the offense of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act/Act). The offense under the Act does not require deep penetration of the penis.

The Court while dismissing the appeal upheld the conviction of a man accused of raping a 7-year-old girl.

The case arose when the survivor's mother lodged a first information report (FIR) in 2018 alleging that the appellant-accused raped her seven and a half years old daughter.

According to the medical report, there were also signs of recent vaginal penetration. A caveat was issued stating that they would express their final opinion after receiving the report from the forensic science laboratory.

The appellant was sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

According to the accused, given his 60 years of age at the time of the incident, he was not medically examined to determine whether or not he was capable of sexual activity.

In addition, he explained the medical examination of the survivor was conducted 24 hours after the alleged incident, so the report claiming that the survivor had been sexually assaulted did not cover that period.

HELD

According to the Court, the survivor recounted the incident that occurred almost four years ago supporting her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). While the survivor's hymen was intact, the bench noted that penetration was medically proven.

In addition, given the appellant's age, the Court noted that a medical examination was necessary to determine whether he could maintain an erection. The Court ruled that, despite the lack of alertness by the investigating agency, the case could not be thrown out.

Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the appellant's guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.