Recently in a rape case, the Madras High Court has ruled that if a minor has been raped, the mere absence of a bodily injury on the minor is not a valid ground to conclude that no offense of rape has been committed on such minor.
In addition to this verdict, the court upheld the sentence of Prakash, the accused by the lower court under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POSCO) 2012.
The accused was sentenced to a rigorous concurrent term of 10 years and 7 years imprisonment respectively.
The counsel of the accused argued before Justice S. Vaidyanathan that evidence of sexual harassment must be supported by proof of bodily injury on the victim. If there is no such evidence, the victim cannot claim to be a subject of sexual violence.
Justice Vaidyanathan rejected this line of argument with a statement “It is a highly fallacious argument advanced by the counsel for the accused as the minor girl did not even know as to what for she is being pulled in for and touched.”
He added that “therefore, an inference can be drawn that there cannot be much resistance in the side of a minor and in the absence of any opposition, naturally, there is no possibility of sustaining injury in the body.”
In addition to these statements, the Judge noted the evidence of semen in the victim’s cloth and which formed part of the evidence report and concluded that bodily injury is not a valid claim to the offence.
The forensic report supported the testimony of the victim before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. In the report, the victim claimed that she ran out of the house after she saw some liquid-like water (the semen) when the accused touched her.
This testimony of the victim is true and not manipulated, the Judge said.
The court ignored extracting contents during the trial such as the deposition of the minor victim. It was excluded for the interest of the minor. The deposition contained obscene words that are not suitable for children.
So, the case before the prosecution is the mother’s complaint on May 27, 2016, that Prakash took his 12-year-old daughter into his house and forcibly had carnal knowledge of her.
In this regard, the complaint was registered as a case and the conviction and sentence of Prakash by the lower court of 10 years and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under the IPC and POSCO Act respectively was upheld on appeal.
The court rejected the accused’s plea challenging the said concurrent sentences.
