Any Level Of Penetration, No Matter How Small, Is An Unnatural Offense Under Section 377 IPC - Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court declined to dismiss a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and allegations of sexual torture of a medical student by a senior, stating that any level of penetration, no matter how small, is a violation of the section on unnatural offenses. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) also stated that even if anal intercourse was incomplete, it would still qualify as penetration, and thus could be considered an element in the offense under Section 377 of the IPC.

The two accused were charged with Sections 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC after the complainant accused one of the accused, a doctor, of forcibly undressing and sexually torturing him for two hours. The complainant further stated that both accused had warned him not to discuss the incident with anyone.

However, the accused argued that the complainant had filed a false case against them due to political differences. They highlighted that the complainant had written a letter to the Chief Minister and mentioned a meeting with a Member of West Bengal’s Legislative Assembly regarding the incident. Thus, the accused claimed that the complaint was filed solely to settle a political score.

Consequently, both accused sought to dismiss the case against them through a plea.

Justice Dutt commented on the severity of the allegations and stated that if true, the incident would be traumatic and could have a long-lasting impact on the victim's mental health. However, a medical report conducted on the victim revealed that there were no recent injuries and that his anal orifice was healthy. The report suggested that there was no evidence of complete anal intercourse. The Court believed that the medical officer who prepared the report should be cross-examined during the trial to clarify the findings. The Court held that a trial was necessary for the interest of justice.

Additionally, the Court observed that several statements in the case diary supported the complainant's claims, thereby establishing a prima facie case against the accused. Thus, the Court rejected the plea to dismiss the pending 2019 criminal trial. The Court also noted that the petitioners would have a chance to defend themselves during the trial.