Chhattisgarh High Court reduces 2004 rape conviction to attempted rape over inconsistent testimony

(Trigger warning: This story contains details that might be considered distressing.)

In a recent order, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape, and not actual rape.

Setting aside the conviction of a Dhamtari district resident for rape in a 2004 case, the court convicted him for attempt to commit rape. In its February 16 order, the court stated that it was clear that the commission of actual rape had not been established, as the victim’s own statement created doubt.

“As in one stage of her evidence, she has stated that the appellant penetrated his private part into her vagina, and in her further evidence, she has stated that the appellant had kept his private part above her vagina for about 10 minutes. She again affirmed that the appellant kept his private part above her private part but did not penetrate it. This statement is corroborated by the evidence of the doctor (PW-11), who stated that the hymen was not ruptured and that no definite opinion could be given with respect to the commission of the offence of rape, and also stated that there was partial penetration,” the court observed.

“In the cross-examination, she reiterated that there was a possibility of partial penetration. However, this evidence is sufficient to prove that an attempt to commit rape was made out, but not rape,” the judgment by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas noted.

The background

The prosecution’s case was that on May 21, 2004, the victim was alone at her house when the accused came and asked whether she would go to a shop. When she asked him for money, the appellant caught hold of her hand and forcibly dragged her to his house, where he forced himself on her.

Thereafter, he allegedly tied her up and locked her inside a room in his house. An FIR was lodged at Arjuni police station in Dhamtari district, following which an offence was registered and an investigation conducted. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Raipur.

The following year, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and a fine of ₹200, as well as rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC.

The trial court, in its judgment convicting the man, had recorded its finding that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the victim against her will by restraining her hands and gagging her mouth, and had therefore committed an offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 342 of the IPC.

The man then appealed against the order in the High Court under Section 347(2) of the CrPC. His counsel submitted that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the State submitted that it had done so.

After hearing the arguments, the High Court stated that there was a possibility of partial penetration.

“The doctor, in her evidence, also stated that the victim had complained of pain in her private part. There was redness in the vulva and white liquid present in it, which clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim had been subjected to sexual assault by the appellant,” the court order said.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of U.P. v. Babul Nath, the High Court said that complete penetration, rupture of the hymen, or emission of semen were not necessary to establish rape. The explanation to Section 375 of the IPC made it clear that penetration alone is sufficient, and that even slight penetration of the male organ within the labia was enough to constitute the offence.

It, however, held that in the present case, the prosecutrix’s own statements created doubt about actual penetration. While there was evidence of sexual assault and partial penetration, the ingredients of completed rape had not been conclusively established, the order stated.

“When the evidence of the prosecutrix is considered in the proper perspective, it is clear that the commission of actual rape has not been established, as the victim’s own statement creates doubt. In one stage of her evidence, she stated that the appellant had penetrated his private part into her vagina, and in her further evidence, she stated that the appellant had kept his private part above her vagina for about 10 minutes. She again affirmed that the appellant had kept his private part above her private part but had not penetrated it,” the order stated.

Published – February 19, 2026 12:33 pm IST