HYDERABAD: Making it clear that absence of sperm does not automatically mean innocence in rape cases, a fast track court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) cases here has sentenced an accused to life in prison.
The court’s observation on Monday came after the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) found no evidence of sexual assault against a 17-year-old survivor.
The case pertains to a missing person complaint registered with the LB Nagar police in 2018. Four days later, the police found the girl at Secunderabad Railway station. She told the police that the accused, identified as Kanakala Rajesh, took her to Visakhapatnam under false pretences and assaulted her. The police then altered the case 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC and ST (POA) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2015.
Following procedure, the police sent the girl for medical examination and the samples collected were sent to FSL.
The FSL report said that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse.
However, in its orders, the court said that forensic evidence like presence of sperm was just one type of evidence, but absence of sperm does not equate to innocence. “Sperm detection is only relevant if there was ejaculation. However, not all sexual assaults involve ejaculation, and even if ejaculation occurred, there may have been limited or no deposition of sperm into the vagina, especially if the assault was brief or involved different types of sexual activity”, the court order said.
The defence counsel cited to the court the statement of the survivor that the accused came to her house four times and they had physical relations before they went to Vishakhapatnam and said that this was proof of mutual consent.
However, the court pointed out that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. “According to the principles of law, minors are legally not deemed capable of giving consent to sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse with a minor below the age of consent is often categorised as statutory rape,” the court noted.
“It is a well-settled principle of law that the evidence of the victim is more than sufficient to establish the case, as she is the sufferer, and there is no need for corroboration,” the prosecution said.