“Allahabad High Court Rules Complete Penetration and Hymen Rupture Not Essential for Rape Conviction”
June 11, 2024 2024-07-05 16:22“Allahabad High Court Rules Complete Penetration and Hymen Rupture Not Essential for Rape Conviction”
“Allahabad High Court Rules Complete Penetration and Hymen Rupture Not Essential for Rape Conviction”
By Shazia Siddiqui
Recently, the Allahabad High Court stated in a judgment that complete penetration and ejaculation are not necessary for the crime of rape. Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan’s bench dismissed the bail application of a person accused of raping a 10-year-old girl and engaging in oral sex with her.
According to the prosecution, the accused took the victim with him and later found both in a room without clothes. The girl was rescued, and she alleged that the accused had engaged in oral sex with her and “penetrated his penis through her urine passage.” The accused sought bail from the High Court, claiming that he was falsely implicated as he did not commit any offense as alleged.
The accused’s lawyer argued that inserting the penis into the mouth does not fall under severe sexual harassment or sexual assault category, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years, and that the accused had already spent approximately two years and three months in jail. On the other hand, the State argued through AGA that the minor girl had made specific allegations consistent with the medical report, which supported the prosecution’s story, including that her hymen was found torn.
The court noted the victim’s statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, which alleged specific instances of oral sex and penetration through her urine passage by the accused. The court also noted that the medical examination report supported her allegations, confirming that the penis was inserted into her mouth.
In this context, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Full Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 696, which held that a rape accused can be convicted solely on the testimony of the prosecution if found credible and trustworthy, the court found it inappropriate to grant bail to the accused.
However, considering that the accused has been in jail since March 2022 and that cases under POCSO should be expedited, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within nine months from the date of receipt of this order, pursuant to Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, which mandates completion of trial within one year.
Case Title: Pradum Singh vs. Principal Secretary Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh
Neutral Citation:2024:AHC-LKO:41454
