HYDERABAD: Clarifying that absence of sperm does not automatically mean innocence in rape cases, a fast-track court for cases related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO) has convicted an accused to life imprisonment.

The court’s observation on Monday came after the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL) found no evidence of sexual assault against a 17-year-old survivor.

The case pertains to a missing person complaint registered with the LB Nagar police in 2018. Four days later, the police found the girl at Secunderabad railway station. She told police that the accused, identified as Kanakala Rajesh, took her to Visakhapatnam on false pretenses and assaulted her. The police then amended Case 366-A, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Section 5(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(Va) of the amendments to SC and ST criminal law (POA). Law, 2015.

Following the procedure, the police sent the girl for a medical examination and the samples taken were sent to the FSL.

The FSL report says there is no evidence of sexual intercourse.

However, in its orders, the court said forensic evidence such as the presence of semen is only one type of evidence, but absence of semen does not equate to innocence. “Sperm detection is only relevant if there has been ejaculation. However, not all sexual assaults involve ejaculation, and even if ejaculation did occur, there may have been limited or no deposition of sperm in the vagina, especially if the assault was brief or involved different types of sexual activity,” the court order states.

The defense lawyer cited to the court the survivor’s statement that the accused had come to her house four times and they had physical relations before going to Vishakhapatnam and said this was evidence of mutual consent.

The court, however, emphasized that the victim was a minor at the date of the events. “Under the principles of law, minors are not legally considered capable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of consent is often characterized as statutory rape,” the court noted.

“It is a well-established principle of law that the testimony of the victim is more than sufficient to establish the case, since she is the victim, and there is no need to corroborate it,” the prosecution said .