Pranav B Prem

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court, held that the mere medical evidence of an intact hymen cannot conclusively establish the absence of penetrative sexual assault or coitus. The Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, challenging the rejection of his discharge application by the Special Court under the POCSO Act.

Court held, “The contention raised by the petitioner that the medical evidence would show that the hymen is intact, also would not by itself sufficient to hold that there was no penetrative sexual intercourse since it is the settled law that rupture of hymen is not a mandate to find penetrative sexual assault or coitus.”

Case Background

The accused, a close relative of the minor victim, was charged with kidnapping the child from her parents’ custody and subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault in a country boat near the Malankara Dam area on January 26, 2023. It was alleged that the accused restrained the victim’s attempts to escape and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. The prosecution filed charges under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 354A(1)(ii) (sexual harassment), 341 (wrongful restraint), 376(1)(3) (rape), and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 4(1) read with 3(a), 6 read with 5(o), 10 read with 9(p), and 8 read with 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Petition for Discharge

The petitioner sought discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that the case was fabricated due to personal animosity stemming from family disputes. He also claimed that the medical report, indicating that the hymen of the victim was intact, contradicted the allegations of penetrative sexual assault. The Special Court rejected the discharge petition, noting that the prosecution’s evidence established a prima facie case, necessitating a trial. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court, reiterating his arguments.

High Court’s Observations

1. Medical Evidence and Hymen Intactness: Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding the medical evidence, the Court emphasized that it is settled law that the rupture of the hymen is not mandatory to establish penetrative sexual assault. Justice Badharudeen observed, “The contention raised by the petitioner that the medical evidence would show that the hymen is intact, also would not by itself be sufficient to hold that there was no penetrative sexual intercourse since it is settled law that rupture of hymen is not a mandate to find penetrative sexual assault or coitus.”

2. Prima Facie Case: The Court examined the prosecution’s materials, including the victim’s statement, which detailed the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault. It concluded that the evidence warranted a trial.

3. False Accusation Claims: The petitioner’s contention of being falsely implicated due to familial enmity was deemed speculative and unsupported by evidence at this stage. The Court clarified that such claims could be evaluated during the trial.

Verdict

The High Court upheld the Special Court’s order, dismissing the petitioner’s discharge application. Justice Badharudeen ruled that the allegations, supported by the victim’s statement and other prosecution materials, justified proceeding to trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court reiterating the need for a comprehensive examination of evidence during trial proceedings.

Cause Title: XXX v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1091 of 2024

Date: November-01-2024

Bench: Justice A Badharudeen

[Read/Download order]