Slightest sexual penetration can prove rape when the evidence establishes the act, not merely an attempt to outrage modesty.

Proved facts, not a medical witness's legal opinion, determine whether sexual conduct amounts to rape; the slightest penetration within the vulva or labia majora is sufficient. On the evidence of the victim, medical material, and the accused's extra-judicial confession, the facts established rape rather than the lesser offence of outraging modesty, and the conviction under the lesser offence was unsustainable. The sentencing analysis stressed that assault on a child of tender age required deterrent punishment; a nominal fine was inadequate, and rigorous imprisonment with a substantial fine was imposed in place of the lesser sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proved facts disclosed rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or only the lesser offence of outraging modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) what sentence should be imposed for the proved offence.

Issue (i): whether the proved facts disclosed rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or only the lesser offence of outraging modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The victim's testimony, the medical evidence, and the respondent's voluntary extra-judicial confession consistently established that there was sexual penetration, though not necessarily complete penetration or rupture of the hymen. The legal test for rape is satisfied by the slightest penetration within the vulva or labia majora, and the expert opinion that the act was an attempt to rape could not control the legal conclusion drawn from the proved facts. The evidence therefore did not stop at outraging modesty but established the ingredients of rape.

Conclusion: The respondent was guilty of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and the conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): what sentence should be imposed for the proved offence.

Analysis: Having regard to the gravity of the offence committed on a child of tender age, the Court held that a nominal fine was wholly inadequate and that deterrent punishment was required to meet the ends of justice. The sentence had to reflect the seriousness of the sexual assault and the harm caused to the victim.

Conclusion: The respondent was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000, with the default sentence directed as stated in the judgment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the respondent's conviction was enhanced to rape, and a substantially harsher custodial and monetary sentence was imposed in substitution of the High Court's lesser conviction and fine.

Ratio Decidendi: In deciding whether the offence is rape, the Court must look to the proved facts and not to a medical witness's legal opinion; the slightest sexual penetration is sufficient to constitute rape under the penal law.

---