Penetration With Male Organ Not Necessary To Constitute Rape, Penetration Could Be With Any Body Part, Object Or Even An Attempt: Madras HC

Justice K Murali Shankar observed that post the 2013 amendment to the criminal laws, the definition of rape had become broader. The court noted that while the pre-amendment definition mandated penetration with a male organ to constitute sexual intercourse, this main ingredient was removed by way of the amendment. The court added that the use of fingers, objects or any body part to penetrate or manipulate was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape.

“The amended Section 375 broadens the definition, making it clear that penetration with male organ is not at all necessary and penetration can be with any body part or object and that even attempt to penetrate or manipulate any body part can be considered as rape. As per the amended Section, use of fingers, objects or any body part to penetrate or manipulate is sufficient and that even attempt or manipulate without penetration can constitute rape,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a case to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against a man for allegedly committing the offence of rape. The defacto complainant alleged that she had visited the hotel owned by the petitioner for sightseeing and while she was resting in the room due to ill health, the petitioner, who was a friend of her husband, had come into the room and under the guise of checking her health, had touched her all over the body including her private parts with the intention of committing rape.

The petitioner, seeking to quash the proceedings, argued that though the incident was alleged to have occurred at 2pm, the complaint was lodged at 7:45pm. He also contended that he was arrested at 6:05pm at his hotel and also produced CCTV footage to support this claim. He also alleged that the complaint, FIR and the seizure mahazar were prepared within a short period of 45 minutes which would suggest that the police had abused their power. He also argued that there were discrepancies in the statement given by the witnesses.

The court however did not agree with the submissions. The court noted that though the petitioner had produced the CCTV footage, the genuineness of the same could not be ascertained at this stage and had to be looked into during trial. With respect to contradictions in the witness statement, the court observed that the same itself was not a ground to quash the charge sheet and could be elucidated at the time of trial.

Regarding the allegation of misuse of power, the court held that preparing the documents within a short period could not be stated to be false or point towards a suspicious prosecution case. The court held that a perusal of the final report and the statements filed along with the final report would show that there existed a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner.

Thus, considering the facts, the court was not in favour of quashing the proceedings and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Veeraraghavan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

Case Title: Abdul Gani Raja v The State

Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2024