Rape Law – Chhattisgarh High Court Alters 2004 Conviction Verdict
Rape Law – The Chhattisgarh High Court has modified the conviction of a man found guilty in a 2004 sexual assault case, reducing his seven-year prison term and holding him liable for attempted rape rather than rape. The ruling partially allowed the appeal filed by the accused and lowered his sentence to three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs 200.
Court Reviews Evidence on Penetration
In its February 16 order, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed that establishing rape under the law requires proof of penetration, even if it is partial. After reviewing the evidence presented during the trial, the court concluded that while the prosecution failed to conclusively establish complete penetration, the material on record did demonstrate an attempt to commit rape.
The High Court noted that the evidence, including the victim’s testimony and medical findings, did not definitively confirm full penetration. However, it found that the accused’s actions went beyond mere preparation and amounted to an attempt to commit the offence.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to May 21, 2004, in Dhamtari district. According to the prosecution, the accused, identified as Vasudeo Gond, allegedly enticed the woman to his residence under a pretext. It was alleged that he confined her inside a room and restrained her by tying her hands and feet.
A complaint was registered at Arjuni police station, and the matter proceeded to trial. In April 2005, the Additional Sessions Judge in Dhamtari (Camp-Raipur) convicted Gond under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. He was also awarded six months’ imprisonment under Section 342 for wrongful confinement. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Trial Proceedings and Witness Testimony
During the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The victim, in her statement before the court, alleged that the accused had forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her. However, during cross-examination, her statements regarding penetration were found to be inconsistent.
Medical examination reports showed that the hymen was intact. At the same time, medical experts did not rule out the possibility of partial penetration. A forensic science laboratory report detected human sperm in certain samples collected during the investigation.
The High Court carefully assessed these findings, emphasizing that clarity regarding penetration was lacking in the victim’s testimony. The medical evidence, the court said, did not conclusively establish the essential ingredient required to sustain a conviction for rape under the law as it stood at the time of the incident.
Legal Reasoning and Supreme Court References
While examining the appeal, the bench referred to various Supreme Court rulings that outline the legal requirement of proving penetration to establish the offence of rape. Justice Vyas noted that even partial penetration is sufficient, but it must be proven beyond doubt.
The court observed that the accused forcibly took the victim into a room, shut the door, and proceeded to remove clothing. It further noted that there was evidence of physical contact and partial penetration. These actions, the court held, clearly demonstrated a deliberate intention to commit sexual intercourse.
According to the order, the accused’s conduct had progressed beyond preparation and entered the stage of execution. However, in the absence of proof of complete penetration and ejaculation, the offence of rape could not be fully established.
Modified Conviction and Sentencing
As a result, the High Court altered the conviction to one under Sections 376(1) read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with attempt to commit offences. The sentence was reduced to three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. The six-month sentence for wrongful confinement was maintained, with both sentences to run concurrently.
The bench directed that the period already spent in custody be adjusted against the revised sentence. It also cancelled the accused’s bail and instructed him to surrender before the trial court within two months. The court warned that failure to comply would result in steps being taken for his arrest.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on strict adherence to legal standards of proof while ensuring accountability where criminal intent and action are clearly demonstrated.