The Chhattisgarh High Court on 16 February 2026 ruled that keeping the penis above the vagina and ejaculating without proven penetration does not legally constitute rape but amounts to an attempt, reducing a 2004 rape conviction.
In a ruling that has reignited debate on sexual assault laws, the Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as it stood at the time of occurrence, penetration is the essential element for the offence of rape.
Because the prosecution failed to conclusively prove penetration even though the victim alleged the accused dragged her home, stripped her and engaged in non-consensual sexual contact, the court held that ejaculating without penetration amounted to an attempt to rape, not rape itself.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas of the High Court modified the appellant’s conviction from Section 376(1) IPC (rape) to Sections 376 and 511 IPC (attempt to commit rape), and reduced his sentence from seven years to three and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment, with credit for time already served.
The bench emphasised that even slight penetration could amount to rape if clearly proved, but in this case medical evidence and testimony raised reasonable doubt about penetration.
Legal Definitions Under Scrutiny
The case dates back to 21 May 2004, when the accused allegedly lured the victim when she was alone, dragged her home and committed violent sexual acts against her will. The medical report noted redness, white discharge and pain-yet found the hymen intact, while the victim’s inconsistent testimony left judges uncertain about whether there was any entry of the male organ into the vagina.
Under the IPC definition of rape that prevailed before amendments in 2013, the court reiterated, penetration—even if minimal-is the sine qua non (essential condition) for the offence.
“Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape,” the judgment stated, drawing a clear line between preparation, attempt and completion of the offence.
Legal experts have noted that while courts are bound to apply the statutory language as it existed at the time of the incident, such interpretations can conflict with contemporary understanding of sexual violence, consent and trauma.
The judgment also observed that acts like forcibly dragging a woman, removing her clothes and genital rubbing showed intent, even though they did not satisfy the strict legal threshold for rape under the relevant rule at the time.
Broader Legal And Social Context
Judicial interpretation of what legally constitutes rape has been contested across India in recent years. A contrasting legal perspective has emerged elsewhere, with the Supreme Court and other high courts emphasising wider protections under sexual offence laws, especially following the 2013 amendments to IPC Sections 375 and 376, which broadened definitions and raised penalties.
Rights groups and legal commentators point out that many survivors experience significant trauma even in cases where penetration cannot be medically or evidentially established, and argue that the legal framework should be sensitive to lived realities.
They have also raised concerns about outdated statutory thresholds that continue to shape outcomes in historic cases like this one, which occurred before major legislative reforms.
Opposition voices and women’s rights activists have criticised the ruling as a narrow and technical application of law that may inadvertently send troubling messages about sexual violence, particularly in communities already grappling with high rates of gender-based crimes.
Some legal analysts emphasise the importance of robust forensic procedures and consistent testimony in securing convictions, while acknowledging that legal definitions evolve over time.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we recognise the complexity of interpreting law through the lens of centuries-old statutory language while also respecting the lived experiences of survivors of sexual violence.
Legal definitions must be clear, consistent and just; but they must also resonate with the realities of trauma, consent and dignity that survivors live with every day. A ruling that focuses solely on technicalities-such as proof of penetration-risks missing the broader human impact of violence and coercion in intimate scenarios.
Dialogue between lawmakers, jurists, civil society and survivors is essential to bridge gaps between legal formulation and social justice.
