The High Court has ruled that under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as it existed before the 2013 amendment, penetration was necessary to prove rape. If there was no penetration, the act would be considered attempt to rape, not rape.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas gave this decision while hearing a criminal appeal related to a 2004 case from Dhamtari district.
What the Court Said
The court explained that:
For rape under Section 375 IPC (before 2013), penetration was essential.
Even slight penetration was enough to prove rape.
However, ejaculation without penetration does not amount to rape.
Such an act would be treated as attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.
The judge said that penetration is necessary to prove rape — not ejaculation.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution:
On May 21, 2004, the accused allegedly forced the woman into his house.
He allegedly undressed her, assaulted her without consent, tied her hands and legs, and locked her in a room.
The trial court had earlier convicted the man for rape (Section 376 IPC) and wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC).
Evidence in the Case
During the trial:
The victim first said the accused had inserted his private part into her.
Later, she clarified that he only kept his private part over her vagina for about 10 minutes, without insertion.
Medical examination showed:
Her hymen was intact.
The doctor said slight penetration might be possible, but there was no clear proof.
Sperm was found on her undergarments.
High Court’s Decision
After reviewing the evidence, the High Court found that:
There was no clear and definite proof of penetration.
The accused’s actions went beyond preparation and were very close to committing rape.
But since penetration was not clearly proved, it could not be called rape under the old law.
So, the court changed the conviction from rape to attempt to rape.
Sentence
The accused was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months in prison.
He was also fined ₹200.
The conviction for wrongful confinement was kept unchanged.
Since he was on bail, the court ordered him to surrender and complete his sentence.
Why This Ruling Is Important
The decision explains the difference between rape and attempt to rape under the IPC before the 2013 amendment, especially about the requirement of penetration.
After 2013, the definition of rape was expanded and became broader under Indian law.