Delhi court sentences man to 25 years, says POCSO makes no difference between forms of penetration

Court said that rape is in itself a violent crime, which gives scars not only to the body but also to mind and the mere fact that there were no additional physical injuries does not make it a mitigating factor.

A Delhi court on Thursday noted that the legislature has not made any distinction between digital penetration and penile penetration, while handing out 25 years of sentence to a man for sexually assaulting a minor girl.

The court also observed that Kumar was under the influence of cannabis during the incident.

The observations were made by additional sessions judge Babita Puniya of Tis Hazari Courts. The court was dealing with the sexual assault of a two-year-old girl by Raj Kumar, a 30-year-old,on October 20 this year.

Kumar was convicted by a trial court on November 19 under section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act.

Advocate Abhijeet Bhagat, the legal aid counsel for Kumar, raised a contention before the court, submitting that since it was a case of digital penetration and not penile-vaginal penetration, a lenient view might be taken while imposing a sentence, as this was a mitigating factor in favour of the convict.

The judge said, “I do not agree. The legislature has not made any distinction between digital penetration and penile penetration. Penetration, as per rape law, can be penile/vaginal, penile/oral, penile/anal, object or finger/vaginal and object or finger/anal penetration”.

It held that the fact that the case was of a digital penetration did not work in favour of the convict as a mitigating factor.

Kumar’s counsel further submitted that absence of body injuries should be considered as a mitigating factor.

The court said, “…no notice can be taken of that as no form of rape is better than others. Rape is in itself a violent crime, which gives scars not only to the body but also to her mind and the mere fact that there were no additional physical injuries does not make it a mitigating factor”.

The court also observed that Kumar was under the influence of cannabis during the incident and cannot be held in his favour as he was not forced to consume the same.