Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that “ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape,” modifying a nearly two-decade-old conviction.
The court reduced the sentence of the accused from seven years to three years and six months after holding that rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“Penetration is an essential part of Rape”
The judgment was delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas on February 16 while hearing an appeal against a 2005 trial court order that had convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Clarifying the legal position, the High Court observed, “The sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration, and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.”
The court reiterated that even slight penetration is sufficient to constitute rape under Section 376 IPC. However, there must be clear and cogent evidence that some part of the male organ entered the labia of the woman.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2004. The trial court had found that the accused had committed sexual intercourse against the will of the victim and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment in 2005.
However, during cross-examination, the victim stated that the accused had kept his private part above her vagina but had not penetrated it. This statement became central to the appellate court’s re-evaluation of the conviction.
Medical Evidence and Inconsistencies
The High Court examined the medical evidence placed on record. According to the doctor’s testimony:
1. The hymen of the victim was intact.
2. There was redness and white discharge.
3. No definite opinion confirming rape could be given.
4. Only a possibility of partial penetration was indicated.
The court also noted inconsistencies in the victim’s statements. While she initially suggested penetration, she later clarified that there was no actual penetration.
Given these contradictions and lack of conclusive medical evidence, the High Court held that actual rape had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
While setting aside the conviction for rape, the court concluded that the accused’s actions had gone beyond mere preparation and amounted to an attempt.
The order stated, “Since the acts of the appellant exceeded the stage beyond preparation and preceded the actual partial penetration but without ejaculation, the appellant is guilty of attempting to commit rape as punishable within the ambit and scope of Section 511 read with Section 375 IPC as it stood in force at the time of occurrence.”
Accordingly, the conviction was modified to attempt to commit rape, and the sentence was reduced to three years and six months.
