The Kerala High Court recently observed that the act of rubbing a penis on the thighs of a victim amounts to rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The HC said that if such an act, even though non-penetrative, results in a sexual sensation or gratification, it will be regarded as rape under the IPC.
The observation was made by a bench comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and Ziyad Rahman AA while hearing an appeal filed by a man convicted for the rape of a minor. The man had asked the court if the act of trying to penetrate the gap between the survivor’s thighs also amounts to rape.
Accused had not ‘penetrated any orifice’
The counsel had argued that the “sexual act alleged against the accused is that of inserting the penis of the accused between the thighs of the victim” and that he had not “penetrated any orifice”, indicating that he could not be charged for rape.
The counsel of the accused had argued that that act performed by him would not attract the offence of rape defined under Section 375. The bench, however, said that the law on rape has been amended several times in the past to widen its scope. The bench further added that now, the definition of rape includes the penetration of any part of a woman’s body, The News Minute reported.
Accused forced minor victim to stay mum
The Special Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the survivor said that rape is not limited to penetrative sexual intercourse. In her statement, the minor had recalled “multiple instances of sexual assaults such as, making her hold the genitals of the appellant till he ejaculated, showing obscene pictures, attempt to put his penis into the mouth of the victim, the incident of sexual acts between her thighs followed by ejaculation (though the child called it the place of urination) etc.” She also revealed that the accused man, who was known to their family, coerced her into staying silent”.
The HC observed, “When the amended definition of Section 375 is examined in the light of the gradual evolution of definition of rape and the expansion thereof, in our view, the expression “cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman,” as used therein, requires a wider interpretation so as to include any orifices naturally present or any part of the body manipulated to simulate a penetration and have the effect/sensation of an orifice. “
The court stated, “However, the sexual acts committed by the appellant is sufficient to attract the offence of Section 375(c) read with Section 376 (1) of IPC. ” The court further modified the order of the local court and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
