The court revises a life sentence to five years for attempted rape, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in sexual assault cases.
In a significant judgment passed on July 10, 2026, the Sikkim High Court altered the conviction of Chenga Thsering Bhutia from rape under Section 376(2)(j) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to attempted rape under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC. This judgment underscores the pivotal role of conclusive proof in sexual assault cases and highlights the legal nuances surrounding the definition of rape post the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.
The case involved a 90-year-old victim who, due to severe dementia, was unable to provide any testimony. The incident was witnessed by her son, referred to as PW-8, who testified that he found the appellant, Bhutia, on top of the victim with his trousers lowered, describing it as an act of rape. However, he did not provide detailed evidence of penetration, leading to questions about the completion of the alleged rape.
The trial court had initially sentenced Bhutia to rigorous life imprisonment for the offence of rape and house trespass, based heavily on forensic evidence and testimonies. The presence of the appellant's semen on the victim's clothing was a key factor in the prosecution's case. Despite this, the High Court found the evidence insufficient to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt, a necessary element for a full conviction of rape.
The High Court's judgment delves into the expanded definition of rape under the 2013 amendment, which does not require penile-vaginal intercourse. It acknowledges manipulation leading to penetration of any body part as constituting rape but emphasizes the necessity of proving penetration.
Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J., and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., presiding over the bench, concluded that while the appellant's actions went beyond mere preparation, the absence of direct evidence of penetration led to the conviction for attempted rape. The court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, drawing an adverse inference due to the appellant's inability to explain the presence of his semen on the victim's clothing.
Consequently, Bhutia's sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for five years for attempted rape, aligning with Section 511 IPC, which allows for half the punishment of the completed offence. The sentence for house trespass under Section 450 IPC was also adjusted to five years, with both sentences running concurrently.
This judgment is a poignant reminder of the complexities involved in adjudicating sexual offences, especially in scenarios lacking direct testimony from the victim. It reiterates the importance of clear evidence and the judicial system's role in ensuring justice while adhering to statutory provisions.
Bottom line:-
Conviction under Section 376(2)(j) IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of conclusive proof of penetration. However, the offence of attempt to commit rape under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC can be established based on proved circumstances and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 376(2)(j), 511, 450, 375 IPC; Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Chenga Thsering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, (Sikkim)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937983
