Chhattisgarh HC Rules Ejaculation Without Penetration Isn’t R*pe, Reduces Sentence

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that ejaculation without penetration is an attempt to rpe and not rpe.

By Sakshi Shelke Updated February 19, 2026 2:01 PM

Chhattisgarh HC Rules Ejaculation Without Penetration Isn’t R*pe, Reduces Sentence — PC: Freepik, Shutterstock

Netizens’ jaws dropped after the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that ejaculation without penetration is not r*pe but an attempt to r*pe under the law. This ruling was delivered in the 2004 Dhamtari case proceeding. The accused’s sentence was also reduced from seven years and six months to three and a half years. The judgment has garnered many questions on social media platforms. Know all about the ruling and the 2004 case that shocked everyone.

**Chhattisgarh High Court Rules Ejaculation Without Penetration Isn’t R*pe**

As per media reports, a single bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas saw that while the accused’s intention was “criminal and clear,” the prosecution did not establish penetration beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of penetration proof was a key factor as it is important to establish the offence under IPC section 375. The conviction under Section 376 (1) IPC was altered to Section 376 read with Section 511, which constitutes an attempt to r*pe.

Also Read: 13-Minute 14-Second Viral MMS: Police Arrests Rewa Man For Allegedly Uploading Wife’s Private Video

2004 Dhamtari Case Details

In the 2004 Dhamtari case, the accused forcibly dragged a woman from her house to his house. He then confined her to a room, allegedly stripped her, tied her feet and hands and stuffed a cloth into her mouth. Later, the woman was reportedly rescued by her mother hours after the horrifying incident allegedly happened. When the prosecution presented the medical evidence during the trial, it was indicated that the survivor’s hymen was intact, which turned out to be the main factor in the High Court assessing the penetration proof.

The trial court ended up convicting the accused under Section 376 (1) and 342 for wrongful confinement in 2005. He was sentenced to seven years in prison for r*ape and six months for wrongful confinement. After the appeal, the Chhattisgarh High Court ended up reducing the sentence to three and a half years and altered the conviction to attempt to r*pe under Section 376/511. The court has maintained a finding related to wrongful confinement.

Also Read: Richa Chadha Claps Back At Trolls Over Meeting French President, Says “Do Better…”

First Published: February 19, 2026 2:01 PM