LI Network
Published on: October 6, 2023 at 02:10 IST
The Madras High Court, in light of the doctor’s deposition, has ruled that, based on the law in force at the time, the absence of penetration into the vulva of the victim does not constitute ‘rape.‘ Instead, it qualifies as an attempt to rape.
The court made this determination while considering a case in which the accused faced charges of rape.
In the case, the victim owned a small shop near her home and owned two acres of land managed by her husband and mother-in-law. The accused lived in the same area.
The incident occurred when the victim was alone in her shop, and the accused purchased items before following her to her land. There, he assaulted her, undressed her, and threatened her, but there was no evidence of penetration. The victim reported the incident to the police, leading to charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, the Madras High Court emphasized that penetration was a crucial element for a rape charge under the law in effect at the time of the incident. Since there was no evidence to suggest or prove penetration, the court concluded that the accused’s actions constituted an attempt to rape instead of rape itself.
The court further noted that the medical evidence did not support the presence of penetration, and the prosecution had not connected the accused’s semen sample to the evidence. As a result, the court convicted the appellant for the offense of attempt to rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000, or two months of simple imprisonment in default.
Case Title: “Santhosh v. Inspector of Police.”