Settled definition of rape cannot be judicially expanded, but victim-protective trial safeguards may be adapted.

A settled penal definition of rape under Section 375 IPC was held not open to judicial enlargement to cover forms of penetration beyond penile-vaginal penetration, because a clear criminal statute cannot be expanded by interpretation and such change may raise uncertainty and retrospectivity concerns. Procedural safeguards, however, may be adapted to protect victims and child witnesses: in-camera protection, shielding the witness from the accused, routing sensitive cross-examination through the presiding officer, and permitting breaks during testimony were recognised as appropriate measures. The petition was therefore accepted only for procedural directions, while the request to broaden the offence definition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "rape" in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code could be judicially expanded to include all forms of penetration beyond penile-vaginal penetration. (ii) Whether special procedural safeguards should be directed for the recording of evidence in cases of rape and child sexual abuse.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "rape" in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code could be judicially expanded to include all forms of penetration beyond penile-vaginal penetration.

Analysis: Section 375 was found to have a settled meaning in Indian criminal law, namely heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis, with penetration being sufficient to constitute the offence. The provision had not been amended so as to alter that settled definition, and the Court held that a penal statute cannot be enlarged by judicial interpretation where the language is clear. It further held that altering the definition in the manner sought would risk uncertainty in criminal law and could raise constitutional difficulty under the principle against retrospective criminal punishment.

Conclusion: The request to expand the statutory meaning of rape was rejected and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether special procedural safeguards should be directed for the recording of evidence in cases of rape and child sexual abuse.

Analysis: The Court held that procedural rules are intended to advance justice and may be adapted to reduce trauma to victims and vulnerable witnesses. It considered that in-camera trial protection should extend beyond the offences expressly mentioned in the Code to cover offences under Sections 354 and 377, and that the Court may adopt practical measures such as screening the witness from the accused, routing sensitive cross-examination through the Presiding Officer, and allowing breaks during testimony.

Conclusion: The procedural safeguards were directed and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of procedural directions for the protection of victims and child witnesses, while the prayer for judicial enlargement of the definition of rape was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear and settled penal definition cannot be enlarged by judicial interpretation, but procedural provisions may be interpreted and adapted to secure fair and humane trial safeguards for vulnerable witnesses.

---