In the previous article we discussed the Section 375 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,
                      which dealt with Rape. The existing definition of rape consists of two basic requirements in
                      order for the crime to have been committed. These requirements are:

                           Proof of penetration by penis
                           Lack of consent of the part of the complainant

                      The depth of the penetration is immaterial as far as the offence under Sec 376 is concerned. In this
                      article we shall analyse the law by examining the judgements of various cases.

                      Consent is usually the central issue in a rape trial. The legal construction of consent involves three
                      different aspects:

                           Proof of resistance
                           Past sexual conduct
                           Corroboration

                      Proof of resistance

                      Courts have defined lack of consent as something more than a distinction between 'no' and 'yes'.
                      In most cases the level of resistance offered by the complainant is often deemed to be critical.
                      Judges have interpreted 'lack of consent' to mean that the complainant offered anywhere from
                      utmost resistance to reasonable resistance. The problem lies in the fact that the focus on
                      consent emphasizes the sexual aspect of rape and not the violence aspect of it. In this case a
                      woman's 'yes' to kissing cannot be construed as 'yes' to penetration.

                      A case whose judgement has severely been criticised is that of Tukaram and Another Appellants
                       v   State of Maharashtra (1979). The facts of this case are that Mathura was a girl in love with a boy.
                     Her  brother filed a complaint against the boy. Mathura was called for questioning by the police. Two
                      police constables raped her in the police station, itself.

                      The court in this case held that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each
                      ingredient of the offence of rape and that such onus never shifts. In this case an offence of rape was
                      not made out and no offence was brought home to the appellants.

                      This judgement caused a huge uproar. Law professors of Delhi University severely criticising the
                      decision of the court wrote an open letter to the Chief Justice of India.

                      The letter criticised the fact that the SC focused on the third component of Section 375 of the Indian
                      Penal Code, which applies when rape is committed with the woman's consent. They pointed out that
                      consent involves submission, but the converse is not necessarily true. Nor is the absence of
                       resistance  necessarily indicative of consent.

                      The letter also pointed out that the Court in Nandini Satpathy case had condemned the practice of
                      calling women to police stations in gross violation of section 160(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
                      Under that provision, a woman shall not be required to attend the police investigation at any other
                      place than her place of residence.

                      Past Sexual conduct

                      Allowing complainants previous sexual history to be introduced in the trial to discredit her further
                      regulates consent. The assumptions upon which this requirement is based is that, women lie about
                      rape, provoke it and deserve to be raped.

                      Corroboration

                      Corroboration is a requirement, which has developed under the rules of common law. It is based on
                      the understanding that it is dangerous to convict the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of
                      the  complainant.

                      Recently however Judges has relaxed this rule on the ground that a woman would not ordinarily lie
                      about an attack on her chastity. In the case of State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh it was laid down that
                      courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self
                      respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her
                      honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her.

                      Penetration

                      Existing law requires that there is proof of penetration, however slight, of the vagina by the penis.
                      Other forms of penetration like by a bottle or a stick is not included. In Ranjit Hazrika v State of
                      Assam the court reconfirmed that inorder to constitute the offence of rape, penetration, however
                      slight , is sufficient. Neither the non rupture of the hymen nor the absence of injuries on
                       the  woman's  private parts belies the testimony of the victim.