Punjab & Haryana High Court: Ejaculation Not Required to Prove Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld a conviction for raping an 8-year-old girl under the POCSO Act, 2012. The court ruled that ejaculation is not necessary to prove penetrative sexual assault, emphasizing that penetration alone constitutes the offense. The accused argued lack of semen in the vaginal swab proved no assault, but the court prioritized the victim's testimony. The DNA report showed no semen, but the court refused to accept this as proof of a false testimony.

- Penetration, not ejaculation, proves assault.

- Absence of semen doesn't imply lack of penetration.

- Victim testimony is crucial.

This ruling strengthens protections for children against sexual abuse, ensuring perpetrators face justice.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of a man accused of raping an 8-year-old girl, reinforcing the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court ruled that ejaculation of semen is not necessary to prove penetrative sexual assault, emphasizing that penetration alone constitutes the offense.

In this case, the accused argued that the lack of semen in the victim's vaginal swab proved no penetrative sexual assault occurred. However, the court rejected this argument, prioritizing the victim's testimony. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari stated that penetrative sexual assault does not require ejaculation, and the absence of semen does not override the victim's testimony.

The court relied on Section 3 of the POCSO Act, defining penetrative sexual assault as penetration without consent. The accused's contention that the relationship was consensual was dismissed, as the victim testified that the accused promised marriage and raped her multiple times.

The DNA report showed no semen presence, but the court refused to accept this as proof of a false testimony. Instead, it emphasized the importance of the victim's account and medical evidence.

1. Clarifies that penetration, not ejaculation, is key in proving penetrative sexual assault.

2. Establishes that absence of semen doesn't imply lack of penetration.

3. Prioritizes victim testimony in such cases.

This decision strengthens protections for children against sexual abuse, ensuring perpetrators face justice. The court's emphasis on victim testimony and medical evidence over technicalities like semen presence sends a strong message that survivors' voices will be heard.