Intact Hymen Does Not Negate Rape; Penetration Alone Sufficient To Attract Section 375 IPC: Delhi High Court
The High Court reiterated that the statutory definition of rape does not require proof of complete intercourse, and that even minimal penetration is sufficient in law to constitute the offence.
The Delhi High Court has held that the presence of an intact hymen cannot, by itself, discredit an allegation of rape, since the offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is legally established upon proof of penetration.
The Court clarified that complete sexual intercourse is not a prerequisite, and medical findings must be interpreted in light of the statutory framework rather than treated as conclusive.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals arising from the conviction of accused persons in a case involving allegations of sexual assault upon a minor. The appellants challenged the conviction primarily based on medical evidence indicating that the hymen was intact, contending that such a finding ruled out rape.
A Bench of Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, while addressing this contention, observed: “The contention that the hymen of the victim was intact, therefore, no rape can be concluded, is not correct in view of the fact that complete sexual intercourse is not mandatory to hold a person responsible for the offence of rape as a mere penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence as has been provided in the Explanation to Section 375 IPC.”
Background
According to the prosecution, the case arose from an incident in which a minor alleged that she had been wrongfully confined and subjected to sexual assault. Following the investigation, charges were framed, and the trial court recorded a conviction based on the victim’s testimony, the surrounding circumstances, and medical evidence.
The appellants assailed the conviction on multiple grounds, including alleged inconsistencies in testimony, investigative lapses, absence of independent witnesses, and reliance on medical findings suggesting no rupture of the hymen.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined the evidentiary record in its entirety and reiterated settled principles governing the appreciation of testimony in sexual offence cases.
On the question of contradictions, the Court held that minor discrepancies are natural and do not undermine credibility unless they affect the core of the prosecution's case. It emphasised that the testimony of a victim, if found reliable, does not require corroboration as a matter of rule.
Addressing alleged defects in the investigation, the Court observed that investigative lapses do not automatically invalidate a prosecution when substantive evidence establishes the occurrence of the offence.
Turning to the medical evidence, the Court clarified that the statutory explanation to Section 375 IPC expressly recognises that penetration is sufficient to constitute rape. It held that an intact hymen cannot be treated as determinative of the absence of penetration, particularly when the victim’s account remains consistent and credible. Medical findings must therefore be read in conjunction with the totality of evidence rather than in isolation.
The Court also noted that forensic or medical reports that are inconclusive do not override credible direct evidence. The absence of certain physical findings does not negate the legal ingredients of the offence when the prosecution's evidence otherwise establishes penetration.
After considering the defence contentions, the Court found that they did not create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and applied the statutory definition of rape. Holding that the intact hymen did not negate the offence where penetration was established, the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the conviction.
Cause Title: Sooraj Kumar v. State (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:965)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocates Ajay Verma, Smriti S. Nair, Sneha Sejwal
Respondents: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
