Merely Because External Injury Is Not Found, It Can’t Be Presumed That No Rape Was Committed: Madras High Court Upholds Rape Conviction

The Madras High Court was considering an appeal filed by the accused booked under Sections 366, 376(2)(f) and 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Update: 2026-09-09 06:30 GMT

The Madras High Court has confirmed the conviction of a rape accused under Sec.376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while observing that merely because external injury is not found, it cannot be presumed that no such act was committed by the accused.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the accused booked under Sections 366, 376(2)(f) and 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice K. Rajasekar held, “The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that despite her pleading, the accused forcibly inserted his penis in her mouth and had committed the sexual assault. Though the medical evidence does not show any external injury, but the fact remains is that considering the nature of the place where the occurrence took place, some times, the injuries may happen or may not happen. Therefore, merely because external injury is not found, it cannot be presumed that there is no such act committed by the accused.”

Advocate A. Manoj Kumar represented the Appellant while Government Advocate M. Mohamed Riyaz represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecution witnesses, a husband and a wife, were looking for a bride for their elder son. They went to meet somebody, and the accused being a relative also accompanied them. Since the husband was in drunken stage, the wife and the accused told him to stay at a relative’s house. After visiting P.W.5’s house to see the bride, the accused told the wife that there were two other two brides and they could meet them. However, instead of taking her to the bride's place, he took her to a nearby forest area and forcibly committed rape on her. A complaint was filed, and the accused was charged under sections 362, 366, 376(2)(f), 506(ii) and 354A(2) of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted him. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the appeal.

Reasoning

Considering the charge under section 375 of the IPC, the Bench explained that normally, if the sole testimony of the victim inspires the confidence of the court and does not suffer from any artificiality or is not the result of any deliberation, the Court will lean in favor of accepting such evidence.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench stated that the sequence of incidents clearly indicated that the accused, in fact, under the pretext of showing other brides, was taking the victim (P.W.1) to a nearby forest area and had committed rape.

“Therefore, as far as the sexual offence is concerned, once the solitary evidence of the victim of the crime inspires the confidence of the court, the same itself is sufficient to base the conviction. Therefore, the act of the accused would definitely fall within the ambit of section 375 of IPC, even assuming that there was no external injury, even the semen was not detected in the vagina part would attract the offence under section 375. Further, the penetration of the penis itself is not the lone criteria, even the insertion of penis in the mouth would also come within the ambit of rape under section 375 IPC. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention of the appellant in this regard cannot be countenanced”, it added.

The Bench further found no motive for the victim to falsely implicate the accused since it was the accused who had accompanied her to show the bride. Dealing with the charge of abduction under section 366 IPC, the Bench stated, “Such an act of conveying a person under a false pretext and taking her to the forest area with an intention to have forcible sex would certainly attract the offence under section 366 IPC. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the findings of the trial court with regard to section 366 of IPC cannot be found fault with.”

Further, finding no evidence to show that the accused was holding trust or authority towards the victim, the Bench held that the offence under section 376(2)(f) of IPC would not be attracted.

Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “Accordingly, the conviction awarded under section 376(2)(f) IPC is altered to section 376(1) IPC and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo three years simple imprisonment for the offence under section 376(1) IPC.”