Published on: January 25, 2024 at 13:26 IST
Court: High Court of Delhi
Citation: Ranjeet Kumar Yadav V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)
Honourable High Court of Delhi has held that the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim do not negate the commission of penetrative sexual assault, as injuries depend on various factors and it is not necessary for there to be injuries in every case to prove penetrative sexual assault.
17. In my considered view, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be read in isolation and has to be considered in totality of the given facts and circumstances and due weightage has to be given to the age of the victim, which was four and a half years at the time of the incident.
There is no doubt that the victim has been consistent in all her other statements and has unequivocally stated that the appellant had inserted his finger in her private parts. In fact, in her testimony before the Court she went on to say that this act had caused her a lot of physical pain. Thus, the contradiction in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is of a minor character and does not make her testimony unreliable. The Trial Court has correctly observed that the victim was very young at the time of the incident and minor contradictions cannot be a ground to disbelieve her testimony.
23. The trial court has correctly observed that injury on the private parts in cases of sexual offences depends on various factors such as depth of insertion, among others. It is not necessary that in every case there would be an injury caused. Therefore, mere absence of injuries cannot be a ground to hold that penetrative sexual assault did not take place.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra