Rubbing Male Organ Between Victim’s Thighs Till Ej*culation Not Rape but Attempt To Rape: J&K High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has modified a rape conviction against a man, altering the charge to attempt to commit rape after finding that medical evidence did not support actual penetration, even as the accused had made a clear attempt to commit the offence. The court reduced his sentence from ten years to five years of rigorous imprisonment while also directing him to pay a fine of Rs 10,000, failing which he would undergo an additional three months of simple imprisonment.

Background Of The Case

The case dates back to July 2016, when an FIR was registered at Police Station Qalamabad against Showkat Ahmad Seer. The prosecution alleged that the appellant took the young victim to a nearby forest area and s*xually assaulted her while her father, an army porter, was away on duty. Patna High Court Says Removing Woman's Salwar, Pressing Her Chest Not 'Attempt To Rape'.

The trial court had convicted Showkat under Section 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the conviction, the appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions and that medical evidence ruled out the possibility of s*xual intercourse.

Medical Evidence And Witness Contradictions

During the hearing, Justice Sanjay Parihar examined the medical reports, which showed that the victim's hymen was intact and that the physical examination did not indicate any penetration. The medical officer had explicitly opined that there was no clinical evidence of coitus. Can Husbands Be Prosecuted for Violent S*x With Wives Despite Marital Rape Exemption? Supreme Court To Decide.

The victim had also claimed she was dragged by the appellant from the fields to the forest, but the medical expert found no injuries on her body supporting this claim.

The court further flagged serious inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim's mother, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The bench observed that her claim of seeing the appellant lying over the victim did not inspire confidence, noting that she had initially stated she was at the market buying medicine at the time of the incident, making her presence at the scene improbable.

Evidence Of Attempt Despite No Penetration

Despite the discrepancies, the court did not fully absolve the appellant. The medical examination revealed a laceration on the victim's perineum, the area between the genital and anal regions, and the victim had testified that the appellant disrobed, tore her clothes and ej*culated.

Justice Parihar held that while actual penetration was not proven, the appellant's conduct clearly demonstrated intent. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the court noted that when an accused disrobes a victim and forces himself upon her without actual penetration, it amounts to an attempt to commit rape rather than a lesser offence.

The bench observed:

"The evidence on record, though insufficient to establish the commission of rape beyond reasonable doubt, unmistakably demonstrates that the appellant had made a determined attempt to commit the offence."

Conviction Altered, Sentence Reduced

The High Court accordingly altered the conviction from Section 376 RPC (rape) to Section 376 read with Section 511 RPC (attempt to commit rape). Taking into account the appellant's young age at the time of the incident and the period he had already spent in custody, the court reduced his sentence to five years of imprisonment, along with the INR 10,000 fine.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jul 18, 2026 02:59 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).