No Penetration, No Rape: Chhattisgarh HC Ruling on Ejaculation Case
Referring to a supreme court’s ruling, the high court observed that the complete penetration, rapture of hymen, or emission of semen are not necessary to establish rape
Raipur: In a significant verdict, the Chhattisgarh high court has ruled that ejaculation without penetration constitutes attempt to rape, not rape.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, while setting aside the trial court’s verdict in a 20-year-old case by modifying conviction of the accused from rape to attempt to commit rape, observed that ‘Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape. It is clear that the commission of actual rape has not been established as the victim’s own statement creates doubt as in one stage of her evidence’.
The case related to an incident of May 21, 2004 in Dhamtari district in Chhattisgarh.
The victim had alleged that the accused had forcibly taken her to his house, removed her clothes and forcibly engaged in sexual acts.
Based on her complaint, a case was registered in May 2004.
The additional sessions judge court in Dhamtari had in April 2005 sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment after convicting him under Section 376 (1) (rape) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“The survivor was extensively cross-examined, wherein she stated that when the accused caught hold of her hand and removed his pants, he penetrated his private part into her vagina. She further stated that the appellant had kept his private part above her vagina for about 10 minutes and affirmed that he had kept his private part above hers but had not penetrated”, the court noted.
Medical evidence revealed that the hymen was intact and the examining doctor noted that there was a possibility of partial penetration but could not give a definite opinion regarding rape.
Referring to a supreme court’s ruling, the high court observed that the complete penetration, rapture of hymen, or emission of semen are not necessary to establish rape.
The court however said that in the present case, the prosecutor's own statements created doubt about actual penetration.
While there was evidence of sexual assault and possible partial penetration, the ingredients of complete rape were not completely established, the court said.
