Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable on the evidence, or whether the facts disclosed only the lesser offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The conviction for rape required clear proof of penetration, since penetration, however slight, is the essential ingredient of the offence. The evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical material did not specifically establish penetration, and the surrounding circumstances did not show that the appellants were determined to have sexual intercourse at all events, notwithstanding resistance. On the facts, the case did not make out an attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the conduct proved use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, which answers the ingredients of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the participation of both accused justified the application of common intention under Section 34.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 376(2)(g) was not sustained; the appellants were convicted instead under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.