Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday held that redness and swelling in the vaginal walls by a woman who was sexually assaulted coupled with difficulty in passing urine are sufficient proofs of penetration, even though 'complete insertion' of the male organ is not specifically alleged.
As per Live Law, the court while dismissing the appeal filed by a person convicted for committing penetrative sexual assault on a young girl, a Division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W.Diengdoh opined that even the slightest degree of penetration would suffice for the offence of penetrative sexual assault.
''The survivor herself did not assert penetration. She claimed that the appellant rubbed his penis on her vagina…In this case, the young survivor may have meant that the entirety of the appellant's organ may not have been pushed into her. However, she complained of pain, to the extent of having difficulty urinating. Further, the examination conducted on her within close proximity of the incident revealed redness and swelling in the vaginal walls, which would be indicative of penetration and the hymen was found to be ruptured. Even if not much significance is attached to the rupture of the hymen in the light of the survivor's assertion that the appellant may not have inserted his penis into her, the redness and swelling of the vaginal walls would be indicative of penetration. At the end of the day, the expert who examined the survivor was of the opinion that the survivor had suffered penetrative sexual assault," the court remarked as per Live Law.
S.D Upadhaya, legal aid counsel for the appellant, claimed that there is no evidence of penetrative sexual assault, and event the survivor said that the appellant did not assert his penis into her vagina. He referred to an inconclusive forensic science laboratory report and the absence of any firm opinion in the report of the medical expert who conducted the examination on the survivor immediately upon the FIR being lodged.