Kerala high court’s division bench has extended the definition of rape to include consentless, non-penetrative sexual acts between thighs.
The bench that included Justices K Vinod Chandran and Ziyad Rahman shared that if the victim is manipulated to press their thighs together for sexual stimulation is considered rape. Even if there is no penetration in the vagina, urethra, and/or anus, the act of forcing someone to stimulate sexual pleasure by holding the legs together is rape as defined under Section 375.
Also Read: TW: Sexual abuse & Its Consequences On A Person
This event has come to light with the case of a man who had been sexually assaulting a minor girl in his neighbourhood. The victim, along with her mother, had appeared in a medical camp in Thirumarady Government School, owing to a stomach ache. While she was examined, she revealed that she was sexually assaulted by her neighbour six months ago frequently. A case was registered, and the trial court had taken up the case. In this particular case, the man allegedly assaulted the girl by penetrating between her thighs.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, but the case moved up to the High Court. He stated that he could not be charged for rape as he didn’t penetrate any orifice as per the rape law.
Also Read: Sexual Abuse In The Church And The Culture Of Silencing
The bench, however, stated,
“Considering the intention of the legislature, followed by the enactment of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and gradual evolution of the concept of the offence of “rape” from time to time, the irresistible conclusion is that, the definition of rape as contained in section 375 would take in, all forms of penetrative sexual assault onto vagina, urethra, anus or any other parts of the body so manipulated to get the feeling or sensation of an orifice.”
Also Read: Sexual Harassment – When A 14-Year-Old Boy Asked ‘Chechide Mulakaonnu Thodate?’
The bench concluded that penetration between the thighs to gain sexual pleasure, and eventual ejaculation, is rape. The accused was found guilty of offences under Section 376(1) read with Sections 375(c), 354 and 354A(1) (i) of IPC. The court lifted the POCSO charges against the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s age.
