Penetration as the sine qua non of rape confirmed; credible medical and testimonial evidence sustained the conviction.

Credible prosecutrix testimony, supported by injury evidence, a torn hymen, fresh bleeding and difficulty inserting a finger into the vaginal orifice, was treated as sufficient to prove penetration. The Court applied the distinction between preparation, attempt and completed rape, and held that penetration, not ejaculation, is the sine qua non of rape under the Penal Code. On the materials recorded, the conduct amounted to actual sexual intercourse rather than only outraging modesty or an attempted offence, so the conviction for rape was upheld and the alternative submissions under the lesser provisions were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the evidence established commission of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or only an offence under Sections 354 or 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The prosecutrix's account was found cogent and credible. The injury evidence, torn hymen, fresh bleeding, and difficulty in admitting a finger into the vaginal orifice supported penetration. The distinction between preparation, attempt, and completed rape was applied, and it was held that penetration, not ejaculation, is the sine qua non of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The materials on record showed actual sexual intercourse and not merely an attempt or an act amounting only to outraging modesty.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld and the contention that the case fell only under Sections 354 or 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was rejected.

---