A wave of reactions followed a Chhattisgarh High Court decision made public through sharp headlines claiming release from rape charges when penetration did not occur. Dated February 16, 2026, the verdict stirred debate across India because of how judges viewed actions during an attack long buried in time. Though old, the incident found new life in legal conversation due to shifting ideas about what counts under law.
Still, the ruling doesn’t alter how rape laws work in India today. It shows how judges applied the old criminal code as it existed when the crime happened, using proof rules tied to what counted as rape before 2013. Looking back at the case helps make sense of things as to what led up to it, why the court saw it that way, and how past rulings shaped this one too.
What Is The Case About? How Did It Unfold?
That day started like any other, and yet everything changed by evening. On May 21, 2004, in a village in Dhamtari district, Chhattisgarh, one person found themselves completely powerless. She had been at home alone until someone arrived uninvited and things unravelled quickly as he pulled her from her doorstep straight to where he lived. Inside those walls, her clothes were removed by force.
Hours passed while she stayed trapped, her wrists and ankles bound and fabric shoved into her mouth. Only when her mother found her did it end. The report said he had kept her there against her will and the official record took shape in May of 2004. From that point on, inquiries began unfolding piece by piece in this horrific case.
Trial Court Conviction 2005
That case went to court at the Additional Sessions Judge’s courtroom in Dhamtari. Come April 2005, conviction landed on charges of rape listed under Section 376(1) of the IPC, followed by wrongful confinement named in Section 342. He was sentenced to seven years in prison for rape, along with six months for wrongful confinement and a fine of Rs. 200.
A single testimony shaped the verdict, along with proof shown during the trial. Afterward, because of doubts raised, the person found guilty took the case higher to the Chhattisgarh High Court.
High Court Decision In 2026?
Hearing the criminal appeal alone, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas delivered the judgment. Partway through, the High Court agreed with the appellant, adjusting the original verdict. Not every detail added up, so the court said proof of full rape, under 2004 IPC rules, was missing. What stood crystal clear, though, was behavior pointing toward trying to commit rape.
So the ruling changed, and instead of rape under Section 376(1), it became an attempt under Section 375 along with Section 511 of the IPC. Three and a half years of hard labor replaced the earlier term, yet the finding on unlawful detention stayed unchanged. At the same time, the judges said both punishments would happen together, not one after another.
The Proof, The Penetration, The Full Story
The court’s decision rested on an old rule about what counts as rape. Penetration had to be proved for the offence to count as rape, Justice Vyas said, referring to how the law was defined before 2013. Under the earlier version of Section 375, the crime was considered complete only if there was penile penetration. The court said that this was an essential requirement.
Penetration needing to go all the way, tearing tissue, or releasing fluid isn’t required to prove rape. Still, for a conviction under Section 376, solid proof of entry, clear enough to rule out doubt, is essential.
After looking clearly at what the woman said when questioned, judges saw something change. One moment she told them he went inside her body.
Later though, her words changed and that shifted the tone of the case. She described how he stayed pressed against her without going in, holding there for nearly ten full minutes.
What Can The Medical Evidence Show You?
Proof from health experts are as crucial as the legal eye. The physician mentioned that the hymen was not broken and there were no clear signs of assault possible to state. Red areas showed up on external genitals, and yes, discomfort was mentioned by the person affected, so maybe some entry happened, though certainty stayed out of reach in the report.
The ruling brought up results from the forensic lab, showing zero traces of human sperm in the survivor’s underwear. Still, even with signs pointing to assault and maybe some level of intrusion, the judges concluded the full criteria for proven rape had not been met.
The Previous Supreme Court Cases Used
Nowhere did the High Court start fresh it leaned on past Supreme Court words about rape under the old law. A ruling from 1994 keeps crawling up here and in the headlines. Do you remember the State of U.P. versus Babul Nath case, where the top court said tiny entry counts as rape regardless of a whole hymen? Still proof has to come from solid signs and not guesses and this point stayed firm across years.
Finding its footing in past rulings, the court looked at Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir alongside State of M.P. v. Mahendra (2022). These cases dig into where preparation ends when it comes to sexual crimes, yet an actual attempt begins. Not every step toward a crime counts as trying to commit it, and timing is key here, the court ruled. The proof may feel short of intent as the line between planning and acting hinges on visible movement beyond mere intention. Earlier judgments help clarify how close someone must come before crossing into attempted offence territory.
Final Holding of the Court
Even though the court couldn’t say for sure that penetration happened, the man’s actions came dangerously close. His behavior showed clear purpose and that kind of closeness, combined with evident intention, moved the verdict toward an attempted act.
A court explained that even without full entry, release of semen counts as trying to rape, not completing it. Because of this ruling, the man lost his bail rights, then had to turn himself in again to finish what was left of his punishment at the lower court.
Indian Rape Laws That Keep Shocking Us
One thing stands uncomfortably clear, that laws now in place aren’t anything like they were back in 2004. Because of changes brought by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, rape has a wider meaning these days, with sex crimes covered under more inclusive rules.
But this is not a one-of-a-kind ruling, previous ones have been able to equally widen the audience’s pupils.
Back then, a 2021 call by the Bombay High Court mentioned that “skin-to-skin” was essential to be brought under POCSO. Otherwise, groping could not be considered.
But the king of bizarre judgements came up in 2020, when the bail condition requiring the accused to get a rakhi tied by the survivor???? This was widely criticised for trivialising the offence.