Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Sexual offences
Section 375: Rape
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
A man is said to commit “rape” if he—
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven 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 eighteen years of age. Seventhly.—When she is unable to communicate consent.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, “vagina” shall also include labia majora.
Explanation 2.—Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
Exception 1.—A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.
Exception 2.—Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 375
-
Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa
Whether conviction of appellant for the offences punishable u/s.8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 is sustainable; whether the appellant deserves to be given benefit under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
-
Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
The appellant came to be convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable u/ss.450 and 376(2) of the IPC and s.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act]. Whether the High Court was…
-
Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is justified.
-
Jaspal Singh Kaural v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Appellant established physical relationship with the complainant on promise of marriage. Complainant obtained divorce from her husband on the assurance of the appellant that he will marry her. Later, on refusal of the…
-
State of Rajasthan v. Chatra
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the conviction of the respondent-accused under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860 for the rape of a minor girl and acquitting him.
-
Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
The accused-appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR u/ss.366, 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court.
-
Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s.482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered u/ss.376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC holding, inter alia, that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the society…
-
Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought issuance of…
-
IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus
(i) When a Court deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, what are the essentials, which a judgment must contain; (ii) What was the duty of the High Court while ascertaining the offences u/s.6 of the…
-
Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR u/s. 376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC on 06.09.2018 against the appellant. The charges u/s. 376(2) (n) and s.506 of IPC were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge…
-
Ms. X v. Mr. A and Others
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 of the…
-
XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC.
-
Manak Chand @ Mani v. The State of Haryana
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence of rape u/s. 376 IPC.
- Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union
- Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei
- Ms. X v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
- Naim Ahamed v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- The State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
- X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
- Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu
- Chaman Lal v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra
- Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand
- Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Preetam
- Independent Thought v. Union of India & Anr.
- Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat