The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that ejaculation without penetration does not constitute rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that ejaculation without penetration does not constitute rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as applicable at the time of the offence, but instead amounts to an **attempt to commit rape, punishable under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC.

In a judgment delivered on February 16, 2026, a single bench comprising Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas modified the conviction in a 2004 case from Dhamtari district. The court reduced the sentence of the accused, Vasudeo Gond, from seven years' rigorous imprisonment (imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in 2005) to three years and six months' rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs 200.

The case involved allegations that the accused forcibly took a minor girl into his house, closed the door, stripped her and himself, tied her up, and rubbed his genitals against hers before ejaculating, with the victim's mother intervening to rescue her. The trial court had convicted him under Section 376(1) IPC (punishment for rape) and Section 342 IPC (wrongful confinement).

The high court reappreciated the evidence, noting inconsistencies in the survivor's testimony. She initially described penetration but later clarified that the accused kept his private part "above" her vagina for about 10 minutes without full entry. Medical examination revealed an intact hymen, vulval redness, pain, white discharge, and semen on clothing, but the doctor could only opine on possible partial penetration without a definitive conclusion on rape.

Justice Vyas emphasized that under Section 375 IPC (prior to the 2013 amendments), the "sine qua non" (essential element) of rape is penetration — even the slightest — into the vagina by the penis, citing Supreme Court precedents such as State of U.P. v. Babul Nath. Ejaculation alone is not sufficient; penetration must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The court held that while the accused's actions — forcibly taking the victim indoors, stripping both parties, and rubbing genitals — demonstrated clear criminal intent and went beyond mere preparation, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish penetration. Therefore, the offence amounted to an attempt to rape under Section 511 read with Section 375 IPC (as it stood in 2004), rather than completed rape.

The bench observed: "The prerequisite for the offence of rape is penetration, not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration is an attempt to rape, not actual rape." It also affirmed the conviction under Section 342 IPC, directing sentences to run concurrently and granting set-off for time already served. The accused was ordered to surrender within two months.