The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently refused to set aside the conviction of a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, saying that Ejaculation of semen is not a necessary condition to prove the offense of penetrative sexual assault only penetration is necessary to prove the crime of penetrative sexual assault.The convict challenged his sentence, taking the help of the medical report.The convict argued that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the victim as semen was not detected at the time of medical examination. The court was hearing a case in which the convict was found guilty of sexual assault and rape of a minor girl in a 2015 case by a special judge at Eluru in West Godavari district. In 2016, the convict was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment by a special court and also imposed a fine of ₹5000 on the convict. The conviction by the Special Court was challenged by the convict in the High Court stating that the medical examination report stated that semen was not found in the victim's vagina, which proved that The victim was not sexually assaulted. Further, the accused argued that the victim's mother had implicated him in a false case because the victim's mother had asked him to sell his house to her but he refused to sell his house. The prosecution countered the arguments of the convict and said that the motive stated by the accused to implicate him in false allegation is baseless.,The victim's mother never talked to the accused about buying her house. Prosecution said that along with the doctor clearly show that blood was present, a finger was able to enter the vagina and the hymen of the girl's vagina was torn which indicates that the girl was sexually assaulted. As per the complaint of the victim's mother, the victim was playing with other children.The accused reached there, lured the victim with chocolates, took her to his house and committed penetrative sexual assault.On the information of the victim's elder sister, the victim's mother went to the accused's house, seeing the incident, she raised an alarm and the accused ran away after pushing her. Rejecting the arguments of the convict, a bench of Justice Chikati Manvendra Nath Roy said that ejaculation of semen is not an essential condition to prove sexual assault.If the evidence on record shows that sexual intercourse took place, it is sufficient to prove the offense of sexual harassment as defined under section 3 of the POCSO Act.The same definition of crime has been given under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.Section 3 of the POCSO Act says that the penetration of the penis into the vagina of a minor girl with any part of the body or any object of the accused, even without ejaculation, is penetrative sexual assault. Rejecting the contention of the accused that she has been falsely implicated, the court observed that no mother can afford to destroy the dignity of her daughter by seeking retribution from a person merely because of the accused refused to sell his house to him. The Court, relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the testimony of the mother of the victim girl, the testimony of the victim girl and the testimony of the doctor, concluded that the accused had sexually assaulted the victim and Upholding the decision of the Court of Special Judge refused to set aside the conviction of the convict.
