Introduction

In a significant ruling dated February 16, the Chhattisgarh High Court modified a 2004 rape conviction, holding that the prosecution had failed to conclusively prove penetration — a key legal ingredient for the offence of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While the trial court had earlier convicted the accused under Section 376(1) IPC (rape), the High Court converted the conviction to attempt to commit rape, citing inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, highlights an important distinction in criminal law: the difference between rape and attempt to rape, especially in cases involving medical evidence suggesting only partial penetration.

Background of the Case

The incident dates back to May 21, 2004, in Dhamtari district, Chhattisgarh. According to the prosecution, the survivor was alone at home when the accused allegedly lured her, dragged her to his house, sexually assaulted her, tied her up, and confined her in a locked room.

A complaint was filed at Arjuni Police Station. Following investigation, a chargesheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, and the matter was later committed to the Sessions Court in Raipur.

Trial Court’s Findings

In 2005, the trial court convicted the accused under:

Section 376(1), IPC – Rape
Section 342, IPC – Wrongful confinement

The accused was sentenced to:

7 years of rigorous imprisonment for rape
6 months’ imprisonment for wrongful confinement
A fine of ₹200

The trial court concluded that the accused had forcibly committed sexual intercourse against the survivor’s will.

Medical Evidence and Its Legal Impact

A central issue before the High Court was the interpretation of medical testimony.

The examining doctor stated:

The hymen was intact.
There was redness in the vulva.
White liquid was present.
The survivor complained of pain.
There was a possibility of partial penetration.

Under Section 375 IPC (as it stood at the time of the offence), penetration alone is sufficient to constitute rape, even if minimal. Complete penetration, rupture of the hymen, or ejaculation are not mandatory requirements.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in:

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babul Nath

In that case, the Supreme Court clarified that even slight penetration is enough to establish rape.

However, the High Court in the present matter emphasized that the prosecution must prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt.

Contradictions in Testimony

The High Court carefully examined the survivor’s statements and noted inconsistencies:

At one stage, she stated that the accused penetrated her.
Later, she said he kept his private part above her vagina for about 10 minutes.
She again stated there was no penetration.

Because of these contradictory statements, the court held that actual penetration had not been conclusively established.

Justice Vyas observed that while the medical evidence indicated sexual assault and possible partial penetration, it did not remove reasonable doubt regarding actual penetration.

Why the Conviction Was Modified

The High Court concluded:

The evidence did not conclusively establish rape.
However, the circumstances clearly demonstrated an attempt to commit rape.
The accused’s actions went beyond mere preparation and amounted to an attempt.

Under criminal law, an attempt occurs when a person takes direct steps toward committing an offence but the offence is not completed.

Thus, while the conviction under Section 376 IPC was set aside, the court convicted the accused for attempt to commit rape instead.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces several important principles:

Penetration Must Be Proven

Even though slight penetration is legally sufficient, courts must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

Survivor’s Testimony Is Crucial

Convictions can rest solely on the survivor’s testimony — but consistency matters.

Medical Evidence Is Corroborative

Medical findings support but do not replace credible testimony.

Distinction Between Rape and Attempt

The case clarifies how courts differentiate between completed rape and attempt when penetration is doubtful.

Broader Implications

The judgment demonstrates judicial caution in serious offences. While courts are sensitive to sexual assault cases, they also remain bound by the principle that criminal convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

At the same time, the ruling does not trivialize the offence. Conviction for attempt to rape still carries significant punishment and recognizes the gravity of the act.

The case also highlights the importance of:

Detailed medical documentation
Clear survivor testimony
Proper legal framing of charges

Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling underscores the fine legal line between rape and attempt to rape. While reaffirming that even minimal penetration is enough for conviction, the court emphasized the need for consistent and conclusive evidence.