Ejaculation of semen is not a prerequisite for demonstrating penetrative sexual assault, according to section 3 of the POCSO Act: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy 

Background of the case 

In this case, the accused-appellant approached the minor survivor and other kids who were playing behind her house, including her older sister, and lured them in by offering them chocolates. When the other kids fled, the accused lured the little girl with chocolates to his house, made her lie by the hearth, lowered her skirt, and laid down on her. When their mother arrived at the accused’s home at that time after receiving information from the survivor’s older sister, she discovered the accused laying on her daughter. The accused stood up in response to her raising her voice, pushed her aside, and left the area.

Court Analysis 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that just because no semen was found during the examination of a rape victim does not suggest that the accused did not engage in penetrating sexual assault of the victim. Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy Stated in its judgement that “It suffices to constitute a penetrative sexual assault offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act even in the absence of ejaculation of semen, according to the evidence on file, if the penis of the accused or another object or part of his body was inserted into the minor girl’s vagina”.