Rubbing male organ on vagina over underpants amounts to rape: Meghalaya high court

The ruling comes as the accused approached the high court challenging the trial court that had convicted him. The accused said if the underpants of the girl were not removed, then how was it rape.

A division bench of the Meghalaya high court has ruled that rubbing of male organ on the vagina or urethra over underpants would still amount to penetration and be charged under Section 375(b) of the Indian Penal Code, Livelaw reported. The bench comprised Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh and the case dates back to 2006.

The Meghalaya high court in its ruling on a case that dates back to 2006 said penetration for the purpose of Section 375 of the Penal Code does not have to be complete.

"Penetration for the purpose of Section 375 of the Penal Code does not have to be complete. Any element of penetration would suffice for the purpose of the relevant provision. Further, Section 375(b) of the Penal Code recognises that insertion, to any extent, of any object into the vagina or urethra would amount to rape. Even if it be accepted that the appellant herein forced his organ into the vagina or urethra of the victim despite the victim wearing her underpants, it would still amount to penetration..." the order, as quoted by LiveLaw, said.

A complaint was lodged in 2006 involving a minor who said she did not feel any pain and the accused did not penetrate but just rubbed from the top of the underwear. On medical examination, as LiveLaw reported, it was found that the victim's vagina was tender and red and her hymen was ruptured. The medical examiner said the girl was raped and was suffering from mental trauma.

A trial court had convicted the accused who challenged the order contesting that if the victim's underpants were not removed, then how could he be accused of rape.

"The court observed that whatever may have been the reasons for the victim claiming that she did not feel any pain at the time, she complained of pain when she was medically examined on October 1, 2006," the LiveLaw report said.

"One must read the evidence in its entirety and also be aware of the status of the persons involved, their levels of education, understanding and intellect...In the light of the victim’s assertion in the examination-in-chief, what she said in her cross-examination must be seen in the appropriate perspective and a degree of latitude has to be granted to the victim, even though she was an adult when the trial was conducted, that she would be flustered, nervous and extremely uncomfortable in such details being sought," the Court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench