Absence of direct testimony or medical proof of penetration reduces rape conviction to attempt to commit rape.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 376(2)(j) and 450 of the IPC for the rape and house trespass of a 90-year-old woman suffering from advanced dementia

The victim’s son (PW-8) discovered the Appellant on top of the victim with his trousers lowered; however, due to the victim's mental state and subsequent death, no direct testimony of penetration was available

Medical evidence did not conclusively prove penile penetration, but forensic reports confirmed the presence of the Appellant's semen on the victim's apparel

The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing the evidence only established an "attempt" rather than the completed offence

1. Whether the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW-8) and the forensic evidence were sufficient to establish the essential ingredient of "penetration" required for a conviction of rape under Section 375 of the IPC

2. Whether, in the absence of proof of penetration, the Appellant’s acts constituted an "attempt to commit rape" punishable under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the IPC

The court applied Section 375 of the IPC, noting that after the 2013 Amendment, "manipulation" resulting in penetration of any body part constitutes rape, though penetration remains a sine qua non

It relied on Koppul Venkat Rao v. State of A.P. to affirm that even slight penetration is necessary for a rape conviction

It further applied Section 511 of the IPC regarding "attempts" and the distinction between preparation and attempt as defined in State of M.P. v. Mahendra Alias Golu

Finally, the court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, holding that when incriminating facts (like semen on the victim) are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the failure to provide an explanation serves as an additional link in the circumstantial chain

The Court observed that while the 2013 Amendment expanded the definition of rape to include manipulation (Section 375(c)), the prosecution failed to prove actual penetration beyond a reasonable doubt because the eyewitness did not see the act itself and the medical report was inconclusive

However, the Court determined that the Appellant had moved past the stage of "preparation" into "attempt"

By applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court found that the presence of the Appellant's semen on the victim's clothes was a fact only the Appellant could explain; his silence and total denial allowed the Court to infer that an attempted act of penetration occurred

Thus, while the completed offence of rape was not proved, the evidence of ejaculation and physical positioning established an attempt to commit rape

The sentence of rigorous life imprisonment was modified to rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years, and the sentence under Section 450 IPC (house trespass) was also reduced to five (5) years, to run concurrently