Forceful penile-oral penetration constitutes carnal intercourse against the order of nature under Section 377 IPC.

On December 12, 2010, the accused/appellant allegedly trespassed into the residence of an 11-year-old girl (PW1)

He restrained her, gagged her, and forcefully subjected her to carnal intercourse by penetrating her mouth with his sexual organ

He further threatened her with a knife and claimed he had taken pornographic photographs to ensure her silence

Due to these threats, the victim did not immediately disclose the incident to her parents, though she complained of physical pain later that night

The matter was eventually disclosed to a doctor at Valluvanad Hospital and a statement was recorded by the Women Cell on December 27, 2010, leading to an FIR on January 4, 2011

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 450, 354, and 377 of the IPC

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of lack of evidence for carnal intercourse, delay in filing the FIR, and the non-applicability of Section 450 IPC

1. Whether the finding of the Sessions Court that the accused committed the offence of house-trespass under Section 450 IPC is justifiable.

2. Whether the conviction under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of a woman is sustainable based on the evidence.

3. Whether the acts committed by the accused satisfy the ingredients of "carnal intercourse" under Section 377 IPC.

4. Whether the delay in registering the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The court applied Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalizes voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature, noting that "penetration is sufficient" to constitute the offence

It referenced Anwesh Pokkuluri and Others v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1] (commonly known as Navtej Singh Johar), which clarified that while Section 377 is unconstitutional regarding consensual acts between adults, it remains valid for non-consensual acts and acts involving minors

The court also applied Section 450 IPC regarding house-trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment

The court also applied Section 354 IPC regarding the use of criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty

The Court relied heavily on the testimony of the minor victim (PW1), finding her evidence consistent and unshaken by cross-examination

Regarding Section 377 IPC, the Court rejected the appellant's contention that carnal intercourse was not proven; it held that PW1’s specific testimony regarding the forceful penetration of the accused’s penis into her mouth satisfied the legal requirement of penetration under the statute

Consequently, because Section 377 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, the Court determined that the house-trespass committed to facilitate this act squarely fell under the ambit of Section 450 IPC

Addressing the delay in the FIR, the Court found the explanation—that the 11-year-old victim was intimidated by death threats and threats of social shaming via internet uploads—to be acceptable and reasonable in the context of sexual assault against a minor

However, it modified the substantive sentence for the offence under Section 377 IPC, reducing the rigorous imprisonment from seven years to five years

All other sentences and fines imposed by the trial court were maintained

The appellant’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender to undergo the modified sentence