“Touching Victim’s Private Parts with Penis Amounts to Offence of Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault”: Meghalaya High Court
July 15, 2024 2024-07-30 8:04“Touching Victim’s Private Parts with Penis Amounts to Offence of Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault”: Meghalaya High Court
“Touching Victim’s Private Parts with Penis Amounts to Offence of Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault”: Meghalaya High Court
By Astha Bhumish Shah
The Meghalaya High Court held that touching the private parts of the victim with a penis would amount to committing the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It said that the alleged act of the accused touching the private parts of the victim with his penis without penetration into the vagina would not amount to committing sexual assault as under
Section 7 of the act but would be considered as aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The accused had alleged that since there was no penetration into the victim’s vagina and he had only touched her private part with his penis, therefore at most he could be punished under Section 7 of the Act. The Court rejected this argument and observed that if the same were to be accepted, it would send a wrong signal to others that the private parts of a female can be touched with the penis and only insertion into the vagina is impermissible which will amount to commission of an offence. This, however, is not the intent of the provisions of the POCSO Act. It was further clarified by the Court that the accused cannot take the advantage of a lesser punishment imposed under Section 7 because of the absence of the act of penetration. According to the Court, an attempt to penetrate the penis into the vagina would amount to committing an act of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Objections were raised by the Accused regarding the non-corroboration of the victim’s testimony with another piece of evidence such as a medical report. However, the Court rejected this contention after finding that the victim’s statement was creditworthy and could be solely relied on to convict the accused. Moreover, the Court found that the accused was not able to sufficiently discharge the presumption of committing an offence raised against him by not providing an explanation for not committing an offence when questions were posed to him under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court convicting the accused. (Shri Thoura Darnei vs State of Meghalaya – Crl.A.No. 37/2023)
