Section 375 of Indian Penal Code and Case Laws

375. Rape

A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:-

(First) - Against her will.

(Secondly) -Without her consent.

(Thirdly) - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

(Fourthly) -With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

(Fifthly) - With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

(Sixthly) - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

Explanation.-Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.

(Exception) -Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

STATE AMENDMENT
(Manipur) -(a) in clause sixthly, for the word "sixteen" substitute the word "fourteen"; and

(b) in the Exception, for the word "fifteen" substitute the word "thirteen". [Vide Act 30 of 1950, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 16-4-1950) (made earlier than Act 43 of 1983)].

COMMENTS Absence of injury on male organ of accused Where a prosecutrix is a minor girl suffering from pain due to ruptured hymen and bleeding vagina depicts same, minor contradictions in her statements they are not of much value, also absence of any injury on male organ of accused is no valid ground for innocence of accused, conviction under section 375 I.P.C. proper; Mohd. Zuber Noor Mohammed Changwadia v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cr LJ 3419 (Guj).

Penetration Mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case; Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1989) Cr LJ 841: AIR 1989 SC 702.

375 IPC Case Laws (Supreme Court and High Courts)

Vithabai Sukha (1928) 30 Bom. LR 613

Bagh Chand (1934) 36 Bom. LR 379

Jateendra Mohan Das (1937) 2 Cal 107

Sakshi v. Union of India 2004 Cri L J 2881 (SC)

State of Maharashtra v. M.N. Mardikar AIR 1991 SC 207

Hawk. PCC 16 S 7 p 122

Fletcher (1859) 8 Cox 131

Mayers (1872) 12 Cox 311

Camplin (1845) 1 Cox 220

Sultan (1923) 24 Cri Lj 1488

Bhat Prabha Ruda (1961) 2 GLR 251

William's case, (1850) 4 Cox. 220

Flattery (1877) 2 QBD 410

Williams 1923 1 KB 340

Moti Ram AIR 1954 Nag 922

Uday v. State of Karnataka 2003 Cri LJ 1539 (SC)

Mana Ramachandra Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra. 1985 Cri LJ 852 (Bom)

Joseph Lines (1844) 1 C & P 393

Shanker (1881) 5 Bom 403

Fatima v. Captain Mc. Cornic (1912) 6 BLT 21

Rameshwar (1952) SCR 377 Didhershwar Ganguli AIR 1958 SC 143

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri. LJ 1096 (SC)

Sheikh Jakir v. State of Bihar 1983 Cri. JL 1285 (SC)

Tukaram v. State AIR 1979 SC 185

Rafique v. State of UP (1980) 4 SCC 262

Tuka Ram v. State AIR 1979 SC 185

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1987 Cri. LJ 971 (SC)

State of Karnataka v. Mehaboob 1987 Cri. LJ 940 (Karn.)

Imrat Lal v. State of MP 1987 Cri LJ 557 MP

Dilip v. State of MP 1987 Cri. LJ 212 MP

Gajanand v. State of Gujarat 1987 Cri. L.J. 374 (Guj)

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1987 Cri. LJ 257 (Rajasthan)

Kumudi Lal v. State of UP AIR 1999 SC 1699

Kuldeep Kumar Mahato v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 2694