INTRODUCTION
Genital injury is not a reliable proof of whether sexual assault occurred or whether consent was present. Many victims of sexual assault show no detectable injuries in their private parts, and the absence of injury does not mean the assault did not happen. At the same time, minor genital injuries are known to occur during consensual sexual activity, so their presence does not prove non-consent. Modern legal standards focus on whether there was free and voluntary consent, not on the presence of physical force or resistance.[1]. The likelihood of injury is affected by factors such as age, previous sexual activity, lubrication, type of penetration, and the time between the incident and the medical examination.
Forensic clinicians document injuries but avoid concluding consent based solely on injury findings. A normal examination is considered neutral, not evidence against the report.
POINTS THAT CONSTITUTE RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT
Rape is said to occur when a man does any of the following acts:
- He puts his penis, even partly, into a woman’s vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus, or causes her to engage in such penetration with him or with another person.
- He manipulates any part of a woman’s body in a manner that results in penetration of her vagina, urethra, anus, or any part of her body, or causes her to do so with him or another person.
- These acts amount to rape when carried out in any of the following situations:
- When the act is against her will.
- When it is done without her consent.
- When her consent is obtained by putting her or someone she cares about in fear of death or injury.
- When she consents, believing him to be her lawful husband, and the man knows he is not.
- When she consents but, due to intoxication, unsoundness of mind, or any stupefying substance administered by him or another person, she cannot understand the nature or consequences of the act.
- When she is under eighteen years of age, regardless of consent.[2]
The POCSO Act classifies sexual offences against children into two forms:
Penetrative and non-penetrative assault.
- Penetrative sexual assault is largely similar to the definition of rape under the Indian Penal Code, involving penetration in any manner.
- Non-penetrative sexual assault covers acts carried out with sexual intent that involve physical contact without penetration—such as touching the child’s vagina, penis, anus, or breast, or causing the child to touch these parts of another person.[3]
THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF GENITAL INJURY IN RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT
The presence or absence of injuries on parts of one’s body other than the genitals, even if they seem minor, can play a major role in supporting or challenging the survivor’s information. Injuries to the mouth or anus may result from oral or anal assault, while bruises, scrapes, or cuts elsewhere on the body may indicate attempts to stop the victim or may accompany other forms of violence. Bite marks, including small bruises caused by suction, may also indicate conduct motivated by sexual intent. The same forensic considerations that apply to genital injuries can be applied to these external injuries when determining how the contact may have occurred.[4]
ABSENCE OF INJURIES ON THE VICTIM’S PRIVATE PART DOESN’T RULE OUT PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT
In the case of Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi[5], the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a POCSO case involving a four-and-a-half-year-old child. The Court held that the absence of injuries to the child’s private parts does not oppose penetrative sexual assault, as injuries are not present in every case. The victim’s statements across different stages were consistent, and minor discrepancies, particularly given her age, did not affect her credibility. The Court also relied on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, noting that the accused failed to rebut it. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were affirmed.[6]
SUPREME COURT CONFIRMS VERDICT, SAYS INJURY TO PRIVATE PARTS IS NOT NECESSARY FOR CONVICTION
In a case of Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, involving a sexual assault that occurred more than four decades ago, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a tuition teacher accused of raping a schoolgirl. The Court held that the absence of injuries to the survivor’s private parts does not, by itself, negate the occurrence of rape when other evidence supports the prosecution’s case.
The accused had contended that the charge of rape could not be sustained because no injuries were found on the girl’s genital area, and further alleged that the survivor’s mother, whom he tried to discredit by calling her a “woman of easy virtue”, had fabricated the accusation.
Dismissing these arguments, a bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale observed that the lack of significant injuries in medical reports cannot be a ground to reject the credible and consistent testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court emphasised that reliable oral evidence, supported by surrounding circumstances, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape even in the absence of physical injuries.[7]
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION ON THE STATE OF PUNJAB vs GURMIT SINGH & ORS ON 16 JANUARY 1996
The Court held that the prosecutrix’s testimony was reliable and that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It found that the trial court had incorrectly evaluated the evidence and its acquittal of the accused was unsustainable. The judgment of acquittal was therefore set aside, and all three respondents were convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 of the IPC.
While determining the sentence, the Court considered the passage of time since the 1984 incident, the ages of the respondents at the time of the offence, and the fact that they had not faced any further criminal allegations after their acquittal in 1985. Taking these factors into account, the Court imposed a sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each for the offence under Section 376 IPC, with a further one year’s imprisonment in default of payment. They were also sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 363 IPC, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Court declined to award compensation in addition to the fine.[8]
CONCLUSION
No physical injury in the private parts or genital parts of the victim is necessary to prove sexual assault or rape in India, as many rape victims show no trace of genital injury. There may or may not be traces of other bodily injury, and psychological trauma often outweighs physical signs. The law and the Supreme Court of India have repeatedly clarified in several cases that the absence of injuries is not a ground for disbelieving a victim’s testimony or dismissing a case.
Author(s) Name: Soumali Majumdar (Heritage Law College)
References:
[1] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 90.
[2] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 375 as amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013)
[3] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, ss 3–7
[4] Graeme Walker, ‘The (in)significance of genital injury in rape and sexual assault’ (2015) 34 Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 173 < https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X15001183#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20oral%20or%20anal,of%20an%20associated%20physical%20assault > accessed 4 December 2025
[5] Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v State of NCT of Delhi CRL.A. 50 of 2022 (Delhi High Court, 14 August 2023)
[6] Suchita Shukla, ‘[POCSO Act] Absence Of Injuries On Victim’s Private Parts Doesn’t Disprove Penetrative Sexual Assault: Delhi High Court’ (New Delhi, 16 August 2023) < https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/absence-of-injuries-on-victims-private-parts-doesnt-disprove-penetrative-sexual-assault-pocso-act-delhi-high-court-1489871 > accessed 4 December 2025
[7] Dhananjay Mahapatra, ’40 years after rape SC confirms verdict, says injury to private parts not must for conviction(, 10 March 2025) <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/118827026.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst>accessed 4 December 2025
Lok Mal @ Loku v State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2011 Supreme Court of India, 7 March 2025)
[8] State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh [1996] AIR 1393
