Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 375. Rape
1[375. Rape.—A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:—
First.— Against her will.
Secondly.—Without her consent.
Thirdly.— With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.—With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly.— With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly.— With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Exception.—Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.]
STATE AMENDMENT
Manipur
(a) in clause sixthly, for the word “sixteen” substitute the word “fourteen”; and
(b) in the Exception, for the word “fifteen” substitute the word “thirteen”.
[Vide Act 30 of 1950, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 16-4-1950) (made earlier than Act 43 of 1983)].
COMMENTS
Absence of injury on male organ of accused
Where a prosecutrix is a minor girl suffering from pain due to ruptured hymen and bleeding vagina depicts same, minor contradictions in her statements they are not of much value, also absence of any injury on male organ of accused is no valid ground for innocence of accused, conviction under section 375 I.P.C. proper; Mohd. Zuber Noor Mohammed Changwadia v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cr LJ 3419 (Guj).
Penetration
Mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case; Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1989) Cr LJ 841: AIR 1989 SC 702.
—————————–
1. Subs. by Act 43 of 1983, sec. 3, for section 375 (w.e.f. 25-12-1983).
