The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that ejaculation without proof of full penetration constitutes attempted rape and not rape under the law as it stood in 2004. The court consequently reduced the sentence of the accused from seven years to three and a half years.
Delivering the judgment, a single bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed that while the accused’s intent was “criminal and clear”, the prosecution failed to establish penetration beyond reasonable doubt — a necessary ingredient to prove rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the time of the offence.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
As a result, the conviction under Section 376(1) of the IPC (rape) was modified to Section 376 read with Section 511 (attempt to commit rape).
Case Originated in 2004 in Dhamtari
The case dates back to May 21, 2004, in Dhamtari district of Chhattisgarh.
According to the prosecution, the accused forcibly dragged the woman from her home to his house, stripped her and attempted to have sexual intercourse against her will. The victim was allegedly confined in a room, with her hands and feet tied and a cloth stuffed into her mouth. She was later rescued by her mother several hours after the incident.
Medical evidence presented during the trial indicated that the survivor’s hymen was intact, which became a key factor in the High Court’s assessment regarding proof of penetration.
Trial Court Verdict Modified
In 2005, the trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 376(1) and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for rape, along with six months for wrongful confinement.
However, upon appeal, the High Court modified the conviction to attempt to rape under Section 376/511 and reduced the sentence to three and a half years, while maintaining the finding regarding wrongful confinement.
The ruling underscores the legal distinction, under the pre-2013 amendment IPC provisions, between rape and attempt to rape, where proof of penetration was a crucial requirement for conviction under Section 376.
(This story is published from a syndicated feed)
