Read Time: 08 minutes

• The minor victim was a 10 year old girl who. The Court said that convict had confirmed that he had "lost control" over himself & thus committed rape upon her.

A Division bench of the Meghalaya High Court consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdo upheld the conviction of a man for raping a minor girl, stating that rubbing of male organ over the vagina or urethra of the victim despite her wearing underpants, would still amount to penetration as per Section 375(b) IPC, 1860.

“Penetration for the purpose of Section 375 of the Penal Code does not have to be complete. Any element of penetration would suffice for the purpose of the relevant provision. Further, Section 375(b) of the Penal Code recognizes that insertion, to any extent, of any object into the vagina or urethra would amount to rape. Even if it be accepted that the appellant herein forced his organ into the vagina or urethra of the victim despite the victim wearing her underpants, it would still amount to penetration for the purpose of Section 375(b) of the Penal Code.”

The case took place on September 23, 2006 and a police complaint was made by the 10-year old girl a week later i.e. October 1, 2006, following a medical examination that took place revealed sexual assault, that her vagina was tender and red and her hymen was ruptured.

The Accused, Cheerfulson Snaitang, was convicted in 2018 by a lower court, in part based on his confession, where he in his statement, recorded before a magistrate, confessed to the crime and admitted that he had “lost control over himself” since the victim was a minor. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and fined ₹ 25,000.

In her cross-examination, the victim clearly stated that, “After the accused entered my house he caught hold of my hands, opened his long pants and mine, but he did not open my underwear, he then took me to the bed which was in the bedroom and then rape me. I did not scream for help when I saw the accused open his under pant as I was scared of him. I did not feel pain after the accused had raped me. It is a fact that the accused person did not penetrate his male organ inside my vagina but he just rubbed from the top of my underwear”.

"Whatever may have been the reasons for the victim claiming that she did not feel any pain at the time, she complained of pain when she was medically examined on October 1, 2006, and the medical report confirmed the same. The medical report also confirmed he tenderness in her vagina which also revealed redness and the ruptured hymen”, the court observed.

The High Court in its order said, taking the victim’s evidence in her cross-examination at face value, it would not imply that there was no penetrative sex.

If it is accepted that at the relevant time the victim was wearing her underpants and the appellant rubbed his organ from over her underpants, there was no difficulty in penetration. In any event, by virtue of Section 375(c) of the Penal Code, when a person manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into, inter alia, the vagina or urethra, the act would amount to rape. There is sufficient evidence of such penetration in the present case, Court added.

“Since the victim was a minor and since the appellant confessed that he lost control over himself and committed the offense, the punishment awarded to the appellant herein does not appear to be out of place”, the HC said, while affirming his sentence of 10 years along with payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-

Case Title: Cheerfulson Snaitang v. The State of Meghalaya