‘Placing Pen*s Over Vagi*a, Ejaculating Without Penetration Does Not Amount to Rape’: Chhattisgarh High Court
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court modified the conviction of a man from rape to attempt to rape, observing that ejaculation without penetration does not constitute rape under the pre 2013 provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Raipur, February 18: In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court modified the conviction of a man from rape to attempt to rape, observing that ejaculation without penetration does not constitute rape under the pre 2013 provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was hearing a criminal appeal arising from a 2004 case in Dhamtari district. The trial court had earlier convicted the appellant under IPC Section 376(1) and Section 342 and sentenced him accordingly. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the High Court.
Court’s Observation on Penetration and Ejaculation
The High Court noted that under Section 375 of the IPC, as it stood before the 2013 amendment, penetration was an essential ingredient to establish the offence of rape. ‘Difficult to Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into S*x With False Marriage Promise’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Advocate.
The bench observed:
“Rape is often converted into an attempt to rape. To arrive at the conclusion that the conduct of the accused indicated a firm intention to satisfy his lust at all events and in spite of all resistance, evidence must be available. As stated above, penetration is a sine qua non for the offence of rape, not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration is an attempt to commit rape, not rape.”
The court further ruled that merely placing the pen*s over the vagi*a and ejaculating without penetration cannot be termed rape under Section 375 IPC, but would amount to attempt to rape punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape Case After Woman Accuses Advocate of Having S*xual Relations With Her on False Promise of Marriage.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, on May 21, 2004, the accused allegedly caught hold of the victim’s hand and forcibly took her to his house. It was alleged that he undressed her, committed se*ual assault without her consent, confined her in a room, tied her hands and legs, and gagged her.
An FIR was registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The Additional Sessions Judge in Dhamtari convicted the accused for rape and wrongful confinement.
During trial, the victim initially stated that the accused had inserted his private part into her vagi*a. However, she later clarified that he kept his private part over her vagina for about 10 minutes without insertion. Her testimony was supported by her mother and grandfather.
The medical examination revealed that the hymen was intact. The doctor stated that he could not give a definite opinion regarding rape, though he mentioned the possibility of partial penetration. Redness in the vulva and the presence of white discharge were noted, and human sperm was found on the victim’s undergarments.
High Court’s Analysis
After examining the evidence, the court emphasised inconsistencies in the victim’s statements. Referring to the medical report, the bench observed:
“This version of the victim’s evidence matches with the medical report Ex. P/12, wherein the doctor (PW 11) opined that the hymen was intact and only the tip of one finger could be inserted into the vagi*a, therefore slight penetration might be possible.”
Justice Vyas clarified:
“For the purpose of punishment under Section 376 IPC, even slight penetration is sufficient. Therefore, it is clear that penetration is necessary for the offence of rape and clear and cogent evidence must establish that some part of the virile member of the accused was inside the labia of the pudendum of the woman.”
Applying this legal position to the facts, the court concluded that the accused’s actions went beyond mere preparation but did not conclusively establish penetration as required under Section 375 IPC at the time of the incident.
The court held:
“Thus, forcibly taking the victim inside the room, closing the doors with the intention of se*ual intercourse was the last step of preparation. Thereafter, he undressed himself and the victim and rubbed his private parts with that of the victim and made partial penetration, which was in fact an attempt to commit se*ual intercourse… Since the acts of the appellant had gone beyond preparation and were proximate to the commission of the offence but fell short of full penetration, he is liable for attempt to commit rape.”
Sentence Modified
Accordingly, the High Court altered the conviction from Section 376(1) IPC to Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced the appellant to three years and six months of imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 200. The conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC were upheld.
As the appellant was on bail, the court directed him to surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence.
The ruling clarifies the legal distinction between rape and attempt to rape under the IPC as it stood prior to the 2013 amendment, particularly on the requirement of penetration.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Feb 18, 2026 12:17 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).