Mumbai, March 5: A recent judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court (HC), which downgraded a rape conviction to an “attempt to rape” because the act involved ejaculation without full penetration, has ignited a fierce debate among legal experts and women’s rights advocates. The ruling, delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, has been labeled by some as a “patriarchal” and “hyper-technical” interpretation of sexual violence.
As per the prosecution case, in May 2004, the appellant was accused of dragging a woman into his home, stripping her, and committing sexual intercourse against her will before locking her away. While the trial court, in 2005, originally found the man guilty of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Chhattisgarh HC modified this to Section 376/511 (attempt to commit rape) in February 2026.
Court cites lack of penetration
The HC observed that under Section 375 of the IPC (as it stood prior to the 2013 amendments), penetration is the sine qua non—an essential condition—of the offense. During the course of the trial, the victim stated that the appellant penetrated his private part into her vagina. However, she further stated that the appellant had kept his private part above her vagina for about 10 minutes but did not penetrate.
Pointing to inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and a medical report showing an intact hymen, the court ruled that “ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.” The appellant’s sentence was subsequently reduced to three years and six months.
Lawyers question interpretation
The judgment has met with sharp resistance from lawyers who argue that the court prioritised clinical definitions over the reality of sexual trauma.
Sayaji Nangre |
Criminal advocate Sayaji Nangre pointed out that the HC appeared to overlook Supreme Court precedents which establish that the depth of penetration is immaterial. Nangre highlighted that the medical evidence—including the presence of sperm on the victim's undergarments and the doctor's testimony regarding partial penetration—should have been sufficient to sustain the original rape conviction.
The HC, in its detailed order, had noted that the doctor who examined the victim after the incident, although unable to give a definite opinion regarding the commission of rape, reiterated during cross-examination that there was a possibility of partial penetration. She also stated that redness in the vulva along with the discharge of white liquid suggested partial penetration.
Another doctor who examined the appellant also testified that the appellant was “capable of doing sexual intercourse.”
Highlighting the testimonies of the doctors, Nangre said, “Even the doctor has testified that there is a possibility of partial penetration, and that the accused is capable of sexual intercourse. Despite these, the High Court could not have taken a hyper-technical view and reduced the sentence.”
Siddh Vidya |
‘Trauma cannot be measured clinically’
Echoing his views, advocate Siddh Vidya emphasised that the law does not require “deep or complete penetration” and that the slightest entry within the labia suffices.
“Moreover, sexual assault is one of the most traumatic experiences a person can undergo. In such moments of fear and shock, expecting a victim to recall anatomical details with precision is unrealistic. Memory under trauma is often fragmented, not clinically structured,” she said.
She warned that such rulings risk reducing grave assaults to mere technicalities, ignoring the violent violation of bodily autonomy.
“If the law is interpreted to mean that ejaculation on the body is not rape, even where the victim was stripped, tied, and overpowered, it risks reducing a grave sexual assault to a mere technicality. Such an interpretation would ignore the coercive and degrading nature of the act,” she added.
Emphasising that the law must assess testimony with sensitivity and not hyper-technical rigidity, Vidya said: “What matters is the substance of the allegation, not the perfection of its description. A hyper-technical reading may undermine the protective purpose of criminal law.”
Audrey Dmello |
Activists call ruling ‘patriarchal’
The critique extended to the systemic handling of gender-based violence. Audrey Dmello, Director of Majlis, characterised the High Court’s view as “patriarchal and misogynist.” While acknowledging that the court could not apply the stricter 2013 IPC amendments or the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) retrospectively to a 2004 case, Dmello argued that the court failed to uphold the spirit of the law regarding the violation of dignity.
“The idea was that there was no requirement of complete penetration to constitute rape,” she said.
Agreeing, Vidya added that the essence of the offence was not only anatomical entry but the violent violation of bodily autonomy.
“The law must therefore be applied in a manner that upholds dignity and prevents injustice, not one that creates artificial distinctions divorced from lived reality,” she underscored.
Delay in justice also criticised
The decades-long delay in the judicial process was also flagged as a barrier to justice.
Highlighting that the tragedy of an appeal taking 21 years to be heard was in itself traumatic for the victim, Dmello said: “The High Court even failed to consider that the girl was tied and gagged for eight hours.”
Prakash Salsingikar |
Advocate Prakash Salsingikar, who handles pro bono cases, suggested that the discrepancy in the victim's wording between the initial FIR and the trial deposition—likely caused by the humiliation of reliving the incident—might have been exploited.
“As the matter goes to the higher court, the court often takes a liberal view and goes by the strict definition,” Salsingikar observed. He stressed that trials and appeals must be conducted speedily to prevent the “liberal” interpretation of technicalities from overshadowing the victim's lived experience.
Also Watch:
The appellant, who had been out on bail, has been ordered to surrender to serve the remainder of his reduced sentence. However, the legal community continues to question whether the pursuit of “anatomical precision” has come at the cost of judicial empathy and the protective purpose of criminal law.
