Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, presiding over a single-judge bench, partly allowed the appeal and held that while the accused’s intent was clearly sexual and coercive, medical and testimonial evidence did not conclusively demonstrate penetration. The court therefore set aside the conviction under the rape provision and instead convicted him for attempt to rape, reducing the sentence from seven years to three and a half years of rigorous imprisonment.
The case originated in Dhamtari, where prosecutors alleged that on May 21, 2004, the accused dragged the victim into his house while she was alone, restrained her, and attempted to assault her sexually. The trial court convicted him in April 2005 for rape and wrongful confinement. He later challenged that ruling in the High Court.
In its judgment, the court closely examined inconsistencies between the victim’s statements and medical findings. While the initial testimony alleged penetration, later statements indicated that the accused had rubbed his genitals against hers without penetration. The medical examination reported that the hymen was intact and only minimal insertion was possible, findings the court said did not support a completed act of rape.
However, the bench emphasized that the conduct remained a serious criminal offence. It noted that the accused forcibly confined the victim, removed clothing, and engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, demonstrating clear intent. Forensic analysis confirming the presence of human semen on clothing was considered corroborative evidence of sexual assault, though insufficient to establish rape under the statutory definition.
The defence had also questioned the victim’s age and procedural aspects of evidence collection. The court rejected these arguments, observing that school records constitute admissible public documents and that the age issue had not been disputed during trial proceedings.
Legal experts say the ruling underscores the distinction Indian courts draw between rape and attempted rape, stressing that criminal liability depends on whether statutory ingredients of the offence are proven beyond doubt. The judgment reiterates that courts must rely on evidence and legal definitions rather than public sentiment when determining guilt and sentencing.
The accused, who has already served more than a year in custody, has been ordered to surrender before the trial court within two months to serve the remaining sentence. The decision is expected to be cited in future cases dealing with evidentiary standards in sexual assault prosecutions.
.jpg)
