Court Says ‘Slightest Penetration’ In Case Of Minors Constitutes Rape, Consent Irrelevant

Last Updated:October 21, 2025, 16:50 IST

Nagpur bench upholds conviction of driver for attempting to assault two girls aged five and six.

Nagpur bench of Bombay high court says even minimal penetration constitutes rape under law. (IMAGE: PTI/REPRESENTATIVE)

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed the appeal of a 38-year-old truck driver from Hinganghat in Wardha district who tried to sexually assault two girls aged below seven. The court said that even the slightest penetration constitutes rape, and that consent is immaterial when the survivor is a minor.

The bench upheld his conviction and 10-year sentence for attempting to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault on two girls aged five and six.

According to the prosecution, the driver lured the children with guavas, showed them obscene videos, and then attempted to sexually assault them. He was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) read with Section 511 of the IPC and fined ₹50,000.

“The act of rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault stands complete as soon as the accused inserts any body part into the survivor’s private parts — the extent of penetration being immaterial in law," Justice Nivedita Mehta observed in her judgment.

The court said that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. “Simply because the medical examination, conducted more than 15 days later, did not show injuries due to the survivor’s tender age, the act cannot be treated as mere ‘attempt’ to discard otherwise credible testimony," the order said. Justice Mehta noted that the survivors’ and their mother’s consistent statements were supported by medical and forensic evidence.

The petitioner had alleged false implication due to family enmity and cited lack of corroboration, but the bench rejected the claim. It also noted that the accused had threatened the victims, which explained the delay in filing the FIR.

The High Court further corrected the trial court’s error in applying the amended POCSO sentencing provisions, which came into effect in August 2019 — five years after the offence on February 19, 2014. Justice Mehta clarified that punishment must be determined by the law in force at the time of the crime.

She said the trial court’s reliance on the amended Section 6, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years, and its use of Section 18 of the POCSO Act to calculate the sentence, was legally incorrect.

However, the bench upheld the 10-year rigorous imprisonment, saying it matched the minimum punishment prescribed under the unamended law and did not require modification.

Shankhyaneel Sarkar

Shankhyaneel Sarkar is a senior subeditor at News18. He covers international affairs, where he focuses on breaking news to in-depth analyses. He has over five years of experience during which he has covered sev...Read More

Shankhyaneel Sarkar is a senior subeditor at News18. He covers international affairs, where he focuses on breaking news to in-depth analyses. He has over five years of experience during which he has covered sev...

Read More

News nagpur Court Says ‘Slightest Penetration’ In Case Of Minors Constitutes Rape, Consent Irrelevant

Read More