Recentlly, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reaffirmed that under the amended Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rape does not require penetration with a male organ. The court clarified that any form of penetration—whether with objects, other body parts, or even an attempt—can constitute rape.

Case Brief: 

This significant judgment arose from a petition filed by Abdul Gani Raja, who sought to quash charges of attempted rape. The case was based on an incident at Roshan Residency in Kodaikanal, where the complainant had stayed with her friend and their children.

The petitioner, who owned the property and was a friend of the complainant's husband, allegedly used this connection to exploit her vulnerability. On May 8, 2023, the petitioner reportedly entered the complainant’s room under the guise of offering assistance and, despite her protests, inappropriately touched her, including her private parts. The complainant alleged that the petitioner intended to commit a more grievous offence before fleeing when she threatened to inform her husband.

The petitioner argued that no rape or sexual assault occurred as there was no penile penetration and sought to have the charges under Sections 354A, 376, and 511 IPC quashed. However, the court rejected this argument, referring to the 2013 amendments to the IPC, introduced after the Nirbhaya case, which expanded the definition of rape.

The amendments specify that rape is not limited to penile penetration; penetration by any object or body part, along with attempts or manipulations, can also constitute the offence.

The bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar, emphasized that the amended law broadened the scope of rape to include situations where the intent to violate a woman's body is clear, even if the act is incomplete.

Given the nature of the allegations, the court found sufficient grounds to proceed with charges under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the case was fabricated, citing inconsistencies in witness statements and alleging that the complaint was motivated by a separate land dispute between the petitioner and the complainant's husband.

CCTV footage was also submitted as evidence, suggesting an unusually rapid sequence of events leading to the petitioner’s arrest and the filing of the complaint. However, the court dismissed these claims, stating that the authenticity of the CCTV footage and discrepancies in witness testimonies could only be assessed during trial.

The court further noted that petitions to quash criminal charges should only be considered in exceptional cases where the allegations are clearly baseless or legally unsustainable. Given the prima facie evidence, the court concluded that the case should proceed to trial and dismissed the petition.