The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that ejaculation without full penetration constitutes attempt, not rape. Consequently, the court reduced the accused’s sentence from seven years to three and a half years.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas delivered the verdict while deciding an appeal. He stated that prosecution failed to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the court modified the conviction from Section 376(1) to Section 376 read with 511 IPC.
Incident Dates Back to 2004
The case originated from an incident on May 21, 2004, in Dhamtari district. According to prosecution, the accused forcibly dragged the victim from her house.
He allegedly took her to his residence and stripped her against her will. Furthermore, prosecutors claimed he attempted sexual intercourse forcibly inside the room.
The victim alleged that he locked her inside afterward. Additionally, she stated that he tied her hands and feet.
Her mother later rescued her from confinement after several hours.
Trial Court’s Earlier Conviction
In 2005, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 376(1) and 342 IPC. The court sentenced him to seven years for rape charges.
Additionally, it imposed six months imprisonment for wrongful confinement.
However, the appeal centered on a crucial legal question regarding penetration. Did prosecution establish penetration conclusively under Section 375 IPC?
Also Read: Bomb Threat Email….https://www.thebharatpost.co/dehradun-district-court-bomb-threat-email/
Medical Evidence Proved Decisive
The High Court carefully examined both testimony and medical examination reports. Initially, the victim alleged penetration during her first statement.
Later, she clarified that the accused placed his private parts over hers. However, she admitted no actual penetration occurred during the assault.
Medical examination confirmed that her hymen remained intact. Furthermore, doctors observed redness on the vulva area.
Investigators also found human sperm on her clothing. Nevertheless, the court emphasized that sperm presence alone cannot establish penetration.
Legal Threshold Under Pre-2013 Law
Justice Vyas clarified that penetration remained a necessary ingredient under pre-2013 IPC provisions. Therefore, the court required clear and consistent proof of that element.
The court concluded that prosecution failed to establish penetration conclusively. Consequently, Section 376 could not apply strictly in this matter.
However, the court found clear evidence of criminal intent and violent conduct.
The judgment cited Supreme Court precedents explaining preparation and attempt distinctions clearly. Forcibly taking the victim into a room crossed the threshold of preparation.
Stripping her and rubbing genitals against her demonstrated clear attempt. Therefore, the court invoked Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.
Defence Argument on Age Rejected
The defence attempted to question the victim’s age during proceedings. However, the court rejected that argument firmly.
Justice Vyas held that school registers qualify as valid public documents under Evidence Act provisions. Furthermore, defence failed to present credible contradictory evidence.
The ruling has reignited debate regarding technical interpretations under earlier rape laws. Courts required proof of even slight penetration before invoking rape provisions.
Therefore, ambiguity in evidence often benefited the accused legally.
However, the High Court did not absolve the accused entirely. Instead, it recalibrated punishment according to legal standards existing at that time.
More than two decades after the incident, the court delivered its final determination. The intent remained criminal and violent; nevertheless, the law defined it as attempt.
