The Delhi High Court in the case Rahul v. State of Delhi observed and has stated that the nature of the offence as to whether it constitutes rape or an attempt to commit rape needs to be considered carefully.
It has been stated by the said court that even the minimal penetration is sufficient to establish sexual intercourse by a man.
The bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the case observed while uploading the conviction of the man in the year 2008 wherein attempting to rape a seven year old girl child in 2006 and confining her in a room.
The court in the case observed and has upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine for an amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded to him.
The court in the case observed that the nature of the offence needs to be carefully considered, whether it constitutes rape or an attempt to commit rape. Thus, it being essential to acknowledge that even minimal penetration is sufficient to establish sexual intercourse.
In the present case, the FIR was registered by the mother of the minor wherein it alleged that the man had taken both her minor daughters to a room and forcibly established physical relations with the seven-year-old.
The court in the case also admitted the appeal of the man in the year 2009 and his sentence is suspended till its pendency.
The bench of Justice Sharma stated that the minor victim’s testimony made it clear that she alone was led into the room while her younger sister waited outside. It has also been stated by the said court that the testimony also made it clear that there was penetration effected by the man.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has stated that it being clear that although ape has been ruled out because there has been no penetration, there has been an attempt of rape because the appellant tried to penetrate,thereby causing tenderness, because of which PW-4 had begun feeling pain.
However, the appellant in the case was unable to complete the act since the mother of the victim arrived to the spot.
The bench of Justice Sharma also observed that it cannot be said that the victim was tutored, especially in the absence of any specific suggestion made to that effect during the trial.
The court directed the appellant to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within the period of fifteen days in order to serve the remaining portion of the sentence
Accordingly, the court dismissed the present appeal.