Penetrative Sexual Act Between The Thighs Of Victim Held Together Is Rape As Defined U/S 375 IPC: Kerala High Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Penetrative Sexual Act Between The Thighs Of Victim Held Together Is Rape As Defined U/s 375 IPC

Case: Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Coram: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A

Case No: Crl.A No. 1311 Of 2016

Court Observation: “…we have no doubt in our mind that when the body of the victim is manipulated to hold the legs together for the purpose of simulating a sensation akin to penetration of an orifice; the offence of rape is attracted. When penetration is thus made in between the thighs so held together, it would certainly amount to “rape” as defined under Section 375.”

“Considering the intention of the legislature, followed by the enactment of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and gradual evolution of the concept of the offence of “rape” from time to time, the irresistible conclusion is that, the definition of rape as contained in section 375 would take in, all forms of penetrative sexual assault onto vagina, urethra, anus or any other parts of the body so manipulated to get the feeling or sensation of an orifice.”

“It is established from the evidence of PW1 that, the appellant had committed the offence of rape as he had penetrative sexual act between the thighs of the victim held together; an act of manipulation of the body of the victim to obtain sexual gratification, which culminated in ejaculation”.

Download Judgement

[doc id=7666]

Previous Judgments

Different Retirement Age For AYUSH & Allopathic Doctors Not Justified: Supreme Court

Cognizance Of Section 138 NI Act Offence By Magistrate Will Not Automatically Result In Decree In Civil Suit For Cheque Dishonour: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court: State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally Serving Doctors

Should Disobedience Of Injunction Be ‘Wilful’ To Invoke Order 39 Rule 2A CPC? Supreme Court Doubts Its Earlier Judgment

Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted For Perjury U/s 193 CrPC For Mere Inconsistency In His Statements: Supreme Court

Entity Which Misuses Status Under Section 12AA Income Tax Act Not Entitled To Retain It: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Trust Registration

Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding ‘Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts’, Reiterates Supreme Court

Lender Who Advanced Interest-Free Loans to Corporate Body is also A Financial Creditor; can Initiate CIRP: Supreme Court

Keywords

Penetrative Sexual Act, Supreme Court, Rape, IPC & Judgment.