Anal Penetration of a Woman Constitutes Rape Under Section 375 IPC Following 2013 Amendment

The Appellant, a 25-year-old man, was accused of surreptitiously entering the hutment of the victim, a 75-year-old widow (assessed as 60 years by ossification test), and committing non-consensual anal sex on the night of June 9, 2015.

The victim disclosed the incident to her niece (P.W. 1) the following morning.

An FIR was registered on June 11, 2015, under Section 376 of the IPC.

The medical examiner (P.W. 6) found no spermatozoa but noted abrasions around the anal orifice and nose.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 377 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the conviction citing delays in the FIR and lack of independent eye-witnesses.

1. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the victim and her family members, in the absence of independent eye-witnesses, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for sexual assault.

2. Whether the conviction under Section 377 IPC was legally sound in light of the 2013 amendments to the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC.

3. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was proportionate given the appellant's age and length of time already served.

The Court applied Section 375 of the IPC as amended by the Act of 2013, which expanded the definition of "rape" to include the penetration of the anus of a woman by a man’s penis.

Punishment is governed by Section 376 IPC, which mandates a minimum of ten years that may extend to life imprisonment.

In sexual offense cases, family members are natural witnesses and delays in lodging an FIR are not fatal, as the victim requires time to gain courage to go public.

The High Court found the victim’s testimony (P.W. 5) credible, noting that even at her advanced age, she could identify the perpetrator.

It dismissed the requirement for independent eye-witnesses, holding that rape is seldom committed in public view and family members are the most natural witnesses to whom a victim would first disclose such an act.

Although no spermatozoa were found, the Court determined that the medical evidence of abrasions near the anal orifice, even three days post-incident, corroborated the allegation of forceful penetration.

The Court observed that the Trial Judge erred by convicting under Section 377 IPC (Unnatural Offenses); since the 2013 Amendment, anal penetration of a woman falls squarely under the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC, punishable under Section 376 IPC.

The Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for ten years (the statutory minimum under Section 376) and a fine of ₹5,000.

If the appellant has completed ten years and paid the fine, his immediate release was ordered. The appeal was partly allowed.