DATE: 16/02/2026
COURT: High Court of Chhattisgarh
BENCH: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
FACTS:
The case arises from an incident alleged to
have occurred on 21.05.2004, when the victim was alone at her house. The
prosecution case was that the accused came to her residence on the pretext of
asking her to go to a shop and, upon her asking for money, forcibly caught hold
of her hand and dragged her to his house. There, he removed both his clothes
and the victim’s clothes and subjected her to sexual assault against her will.
After the incident, the accused locked the victim inside a room, tied her hands
and legs, and gagged her mouth with cloth. The victim remained confined until
her mother returned home in the evening and rescued her. A report was lodged at
the police station, leading to investigation, filing of charge-sheet, and
committal of the case to the Sessions Court.
The trial court, after examining 19
prosecution witnesses including the victim, her mother, medical experts, and
other supporting witnesses, convicted the accused under Sections 376(1) and 342
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. The accused denied the
charges in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and preferred an appeal
challenging the conviction, contending that the prosecution evidence was
unreliable, contradictory, unsupported by medical evidence, delayed, and lacked
independent corroboration. He also disputed the proof of the victim’s age and
alleged false implication.
ISSUES:
The primary issues before the appellate
court were whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused committed the offence of rape under Section 376(1) IPC, or whether the
evidence only established an attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with
Section 511 IPC, and whether the conviction could be sustained in light of
alleged contradictions in the victim’s testimony, medical evidence regarding
penetration, delay in recording statements, absence of independent witnesses,
and questions surrounding proof of the victim’s age.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The appellate court partly allowed the
appeal by modifying the conviction from Section 376(1) IPC to Section 376 read
with Section 511 IPC, holding that the evidence did not conclusively establish
the commission of rape but did prove an attempt to commit rape. The sentence
was accordingly reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months
with fine. The conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC were affirmed, and
both sentences were directed to run concurrently, with the appellant granted
set-off for the period already undergone in custody.
The court closely examined the testimony of
the victim and found material inconsistencies regarding penetration. While the
victim initially stated that penetration had occurred, she later clarified that
the accused had kept his private part over her private part for several minutes
and had not penetrated. This ambiguity was significant and was corroborated by
medical evidence, which showed that the hymen was intact and no definite
opinion regarding rape could be given, though signs suggested the possibility
of partial penetration. Relying on settled legal principles, the court
reiterated that penetration, even slight, is essential to constitute rape, and
that ejaculation or rupture of the hymen is not mandatory. However, in the
present case, the evidence fell short of conclusively proving penetration
beyond reasonable doubt.
The court then analysed whether the acts of
the accused amounted to an attempt to commit rape. Applying established Supreme
Court jurisprudence distinguishing preparation from attempt, the court held
that the accused had gone far beyond mere preparation by forcibly confining the
victim, undressing both of them, rubbing his genitals against hers, and
partially penetrating. These acts demonstrated a clear intention to commit rape
and were proximate to the consummation of the offence. The court rejected the
defence arguments relating to consent, delay, lack of independent witnesses,
and proof of age, holding that the victim’s testimony was natural, credible,
and sufficiently corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. Consequently,
while the charge of rape was not fully made out, the offence of attempt to
commit rape stood clearly established.
ANALYSIS:
This judgment illustrates the careful
judicial balance required in sexual offence cases between protecting the
victim’s dignity and ensuring that criminal liability is imposed strictly in
accordance with established legal standards. The appellate court’s approach
reflects a nuanced appreciation of evidentiary requirements under Section 375
IPC as it stood prior to the 2013 amendment, particularly the centrality of
penetration as the sine qua non for the offence of rape. By closely
scrutinising the victim’s testimony alongside medical evidence, the court
avoided a mechanical affirmation of conviction and instead engaged in a
reasoned evaluation of whether the statutory ingredients of rape were fully satisfied.
The decision underscores that while the testimony of the prosecutrix can, by
itself, form the basis of conviction, it must be consistent, cogent, and
capable of inspiring confidence, especially where medical evidence introduces
ambiguity.
At the same time, the judgment demonstrates
that evidentiary shortcomings in proving the completed offence do not
automatically entitle the accused to acquittal where the facts clearly disclose
criminal intent and overt acts towards commission of the offence. By converting
the conviction to one under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, the court
reaffirmed the doctrinal distinction between preparation and attempt,
emphasising proximity to consummation and the accused’s determination to commit
the offence despite resistance. The reasoning also reflects judicial
sensitivity to the realities of sexual violence, rejecting defences based on
minor contradictions, absence of independent witnesses, or speculative
challenges to age where consent was never pleaded. Overall, the decision
reinforces proportionality in criminal adjudication, ensuring accountability
for grave sexual misconduct while aligning the conviction precisely with what
the evidence legally establishes.
info@adhwaitha.com