In a significant ruling clarifying the legal distinction between preparation, attempt, and the completed offence of rape, the Chhattisgarh High Court has modified a two-decade-old conviction, holding that ejaculation without proven penetration does not constitute rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code as it existed at the time of the incident. Delivering the judgment on February 16, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas altered a 2005 trial court verdict that had sentenced the accused to seven years’ imprisonment for rape, instead convicting him for attempting to commit rape.
The case arose from an incident on May 21, 2004, when the survivor alleged that the accused forcibly took her to his house, undressed both of them, tied her hands and legs, gagged her, and confined her in a room before committing sexual acts against her will. The prosecution maintained that these acts amounted to rape, leading to the original conviction by the trial court.
During appellate scrutiny, the High Court closely examined the survivor’s testimony, which became central to the outcome. In cross-examination, she stated that the accused kept his private part above her vagina but did not penetrate, though at another stage of her evidence she claimed penetration had occurred. The court found these contradictions material, observing that the survivor’s own statements created reasonable doubt regarding whether penetration — the essential legal ingredient of rape — had been established.
Medical evidence was also evaluated in detail. The examining doctor noted that the hymen was intact, although the tip of one finger could be introduced into the vagina, suggesting only a possibility of partial penetration. Redness in the vulva and the presence of a white substance were recorded, but the doctor stated that no definite medical opinion confirming rape could be given. The court concluded that while the findings supported sexual assault and an attempt to commit rape, they did not conclusively establish penetration.
Reiterating settled legal principles, the High Court observed that penetration — even slight penetration — is sufficient to constitute rape under the law, but there must be clear and cogent proof that some part of the male organ entered the labia of the woman. In the absence of such definitive evidence, the offence could not legally be classified as completed rape.
The judgment carefully distinguished between stages of criminal conduct. The court held that forcibly taking the victim into a room and closing the door constituted preparation for the offence. The subsequent acts — stripping both individuals, rubbing genitals, and attempting sexual intercourse — crossed the stage of preparation and amounted to an attempt because they demonstrated a clear intention and actions proximate to committing rape. However, since penetration was not conclusively proved, the offence fell short of completion.
Accordingly, the court modified the conviction to attempt to commit rape under Section 511 read with Section 375 of the IPC, as applicable at the time of the offence. The bench also cautioned that not every indecent assault automatically amounts to rape or attempted rape and emphasised the need for courts to carefully assess evidence, particularly where testimonies contain inconsistencies.
As a result of the altered conviction, the High Court reduced the sentence from seven years to three years and six months of imprisonment. The accused has been directed to surrender within two months to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. The court also ordered that the period already spent in custody — from June 3, 2004 to April 6, 2005, along with an additional three months after bail — be set off in accordance with legal provisions.
