Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the rape of a ten-year-old girl under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. On November 16, 1995, after returning from school, the prosecutrix visited the appellant's grocery shop, where he called her inside, closed the door, removed her underwear, and placed his penis on her private part while moving her back and forth. This caused her pain and bleeding. The appellant gave her paper to clean the blood, poured Pepsicola on her private part, gave her money and toffee, and threatened her to remain silent. She later disclosed the incident to her sister and maternal uncle, who took her to a doctor. The doctor refused treatment and advised reporting to the police. The mother returned in the evening, heard the account, and lodged a complaint. Medical examination revealed an abrasion and slight distortion of the hymen, with the doctor opining it was an attempt to rape. The prosecution also relied on the recovery of bloodstained clothes and a chemical analyser's report showing the blood group on the clothes matched the prosecutrix's group A, while the appellant's group was O. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 342 and 506(ii) IPC. On appeal, the sole argument advanced was that the evidence did not prove penetration, the essential ingredient of rape, and at most established an attempt under Section 511 IPC. The appellant contended the injury could have been caused by external rubbing or menstruation, and the medical opinion was not definitive. The court took up the question whether the conviction could be sustained, but the final decision is not included in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offence of Rape - Attempt vs. Completed Offence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 375, 376(2)(f), 511 - The appellant argued that there was no legal evidence of penetration, the injury and bloodstains could be due to external rubbing or menstruation, and the medical opinion was uncertain, thus the conviction ought to be for attempt only - The court considered the question whether the evidence established penetration, but the final holding on this issue is not provided in the excerpt (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC is sustainable on the evidence, particularly whether penetration was proved.
Law Points
- Penetration is sine qua non for offence under Section 375 and 376 IPC
- distinction between attempt to commit rape under Section 511 and completed rape
- appreciation of medical evidence regarding injury and bloodstains.
