Minor’s consent legally void in sexual assault cases: Court upholds 20-year sentence

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal against the conviction and 20-year-sentence of an accused indicted for sexually assaulting a minor, reaffirming the principle that a minor’s consent holds no legal validity in cases of penetrative sexual assault. 

The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma upheld the judgment pronounced by Kapurthala Special Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, which convicted the accused under Section 376-AB of the IPC and the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act-2012, for committing the heinous offense against the minor. An appeal in the matter was filed by the convict against the verdict dated November 24, 2021.

Taking up the matter, the court emphasised that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by her mother and other evidence, was reliable and confidence-inspiring, making the defence’s arguments unpersuasive. 

The court asserted that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offense as established by her birth certificate and corroborated testimony. As such, any claim of consent by the victim was “completely inconsequential”.

The bench, during the course of hearing, took note of the fact that the DNA expert’s report, based on the analysis of material sent for examination, had failed to establish any conclusive incriminatory evidence against the accused. The defence relied on this finding to argue that the prosecutrix’s testimony lacked credibility and should not be relied upon to convict the accused. 

But the contention failed to find favour with the court. The bench asserted that the prosecutrix’s testimony was consistent, truthful, and inspired confidence. The court added that the absence of incriminatory forensic findings could not override the strength of the direct and corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. 

The court clarified that the detection of semen on vaginal swabs or other forensic evidence was not essential to establish the offense in cases of penetrative sexual assault involving minors. It observed: “In the event of any penetrative sexual assault committed on a minor victim, the absence of semen detection does not diminish the evidentiary value of the prosecutrix’s testimony.” 

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were upheld. The court directed that the trial judge would ensure the immediate execution of the sentence by issuing warrants, if the convict-appellant was currently on bail.