Published on: 19 Feb, 2026 18:02 IST
In a ruling that’s getting a lot of attention (and some strong reactions), the Chhattisgarh High Court has decided that just ejaculating without the penis actually entering the vagina doesn’t count as full rape under the old law from back then.
This happened on February 16, 2026. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas looked at a case from 2004 involving a minor girl in Dhamtari district. The lower court back in 2005 had found the man guilty of rape and sent him to jail for 7 years.
What the court said now:
- The girl said the accused dragged her into his house, took off her clothes, tied her up, and rubbed his private part on top of hers until he ejaculated. Her mom came and saved her.
- But in her statements, she first said there was entry, then clarified it was just kept “above” without going in.
- The medical check showed her hymen was still intact (only the tip of one finger could go in), there was some redness and pain, white discharge, and semen on clothes – but no clear proof of penetration.
The judge explained that under the Indian Penal Code rules at the time (before big changes in 2013), penetration – even a tiny bit – is the main thing needed to prove rape. Just ejaculation or rubbing isn’t enough on its own.
However, the court said the man’s actions went way beyond just planning – he clearly intended to do more, took real steps, and got close to it. So it counts as attempt to rape (under Section 376 read with 511), not the completed crime.
They changed the conviction from rape to attempt to rape and reduced the jail time to 3 years and 6 months of hard labour, plus a small ₹200 fine. The extra 6-month sentence for wrongfully confining her stays the same, and both run together. He gets credit for any time already spent in jail and has to surrender within two months if not already free.
People are upset about this – many feel it focuses too much on legal technical details and ignores how traumatic the experience was for the survivor. Some celebrities and folks on social media are calling it unfair or insensitive. Others say the court had to follow the strict proof rules of the old law.