Story Content

On February 16, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court produced a controversial verdict and said that ejaculation outside penetration amounted to attempting rape, but not rape itself. In a case decided in 2004, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas reversed part of the conviction by the trial court (under Section 376 IPC (rape)) and remanded it (the conviction) to a case under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC (attempt to rape).

The case was that of forcible sexual assault, in which the victim claimed in the first count of first penetration and then proceeded to explain that the accused only placed his private part on top of hers without complete penetration. There had been medical evidence of an intact hymen, but only of redness, pain, white discharge, and perhaps partial penetration—but no positive evidence that penetration had taken place in the labia.

The court once again reiterated that in the IPC, given the circumstances at the time of the offense in 2004 (before the 2013 amendments), the sine qua non (essential condition) of rape was penetration rather than ejaculation. Minor penetration is enough, yet suspicion or possibility is not enough on its own; actual evidence is needed. Based on such precedents as State of U.P. v. Babul Nath, the bench emphasized that hymen or semen emission breaking is not required, but penetration should be demonstrated definitely.

Based on suspicion raised by the inconsistent statements of the survivor and the medical report, the court found the acts of abjectly dragging her to a room, removing her clothes, and rubbing body parts to have an open criminal intent and crossed preparation with an attempt. The initial period of seven years of strict imprisonment was brought to 3 years and six months of imprisonment (along with a fine), and the conviction of wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC) was confirmed. Sentences are served concurrently with time set off.

The decision has sparked much outrage on social media and with the NGOs dealing with women's rights issues, who blame it for having the potential of crimping the safeguards involved in cases of sexual attacks. It has been observed by legal experts to correlate with the strict statutory interpretation, yet there are continuous discussions on the definition of rape and the standards of evidence in India. The case is only applicable to the law prior to 2013; since then, the law has been changed to be wider in its coverage of rape by incorporating non-penetrative acts in some instances.

This ruling highlights the importance of the medical and testimonial evidence in coping with rape. The prisoner should hand himself or herself over within two months in case he or she is not already in custody.