JUDGMENT Arun Chandra Upadhyay, J. 1. By this application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the complainant/petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2011 (passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S) No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati, in C.R. Case No. 2306/2009, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to frame charge against the accused/respondents, was rejected under Section 377 of the IPC. I have heard Mr. A.K. Buhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel representing the private Respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. The facts leading to filing this petition, in brief, may be stated as follows: The petitioner as complainant, instituted a complaint case against the accused respondent in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati alleging inter alia that in pursuance of FIR lodged by the complainant/petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge, Bharalumukh police station on 12.3.08, regarding missing of his minor daughter, police made a GD Entry No. 505 dated 13.3.08, and launched investigation. During the course of investigation, police brought two minor victim girls to the police station, and accordingly interrogated them. During interrogation, the accused-respondent No. 3 along with some police personnel forcibly undressed the complainant's minor daughter and her friend (another minor girl). It is also alleged by the complainant/petitioner that the accused/respondent used abusive and vulgar languages to the victim girls and on the top of it, the accused respondent No. 3 inserted a stick inside the vagina of the complainant/petitioner's minor daughter and thus apart from outraging her modesty committed unnatural offence on the person of a minor. 3. The complaint petition filed by the complainant/petitioner, was registered as C.R. Case No. 2906/2009, in the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup. The case was transferred to the Court of learned SDJM(S), Kamrup for disposal. The learned trial Court after recording the initial deposition of the complainant, examined witnesses, as per provisions of Section 202 of CrPC and thus took cognizance of the offence under Section 323/354/377/34 of IPC against the accused-respondent No. 3. 4. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused/respondent was summoned to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, the accused-respondent entered appearance before the learned trial Court On appearance of the accused-respondent, learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses before charge and accordingly took up the matter for consideration of charge. 4. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused/respondent was summoned to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, the accused-respondent entered appearance before the learned trial Court On appearance of the accused-respondent, learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses before charge and accordingly took up the matter for consideration of charge. Learned trial Court, on consideration of the material on record, finding sufficient materials against the accused-respondent under Section 323/354 of IPC, explained the particulars of offence to the accused- respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty. 5. However, while considering framing of charge against the accused-respondent, the learned trial Court observed in the impugned order that there are no materials to frame charge under Section 377 of IPC against the accused-respondent. The complainant petitioner having been highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the learned trial Court, for not framing charge under Section 377 of IPC, against the accused person, has preferred the present criminal petition, seeking direction from this Court, for framing charge under Section 377 of IPC, against the accused-respondent, in addition to the above charges, on the basis of the materials on record. 6. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that when a stick is inserted in the private parts of a minor girl, it would amount to an unnatural offence, which would attract the ingredients of offence under Section 377 of IPC and therefore, non-framing of charge under Section 377 of IPC is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that insertion of a stick in the private parts of the minor girl, prima facie, was with a desire to satiate his carnal sexual pleasure which amounts to an offence under Section 377 of IPC. 7. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel further pointed out that on a plain reading of the evidence on record makes it crystal clear that ingredients of unnatural offence under Section 377 of IPC is made out against the accused, since a stick was inserted in the private parts of the minor girl. Mr. Bhuyan by referring to the meaning of the word 'carnal', appearing in Section 377 of IPC, pointed out that 'carnal intercourse' would also mean an unnatural desire and/or manner of deriving sexual pleasure. In this context, Mr. Bhuyan relied on the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (2004) 5 SCC 518 : Sakshi Vs. Bhuyan by referring to the meaning of the word 'carnal', appearing in Section 377 of IPC, pointed out that 'carnal intercourse' would also mean an unnatural desire and/or manner of deriving sexual pleasure. In this context, Mr. Bhuyan relied on the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (2004) 5 SCC 518 : Sakshi Vs. Union of India and (2011) 6 SCC 261 : Childline India Foundation Vs. Allan John Waters. 8. Mr. AM Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has submitted that in order to constitute an offence under Section 377 of IPC, use of sex organ by the offender is an essential requirement. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since a stick was allegedly inserted in the vagina of the victim, no offence under Section 377 of IPC can be said to have been made out against the accused-respondent. 9. The moot question which has arisen, in this criminal petition, for consideration, is whether inserting a foreign object or a stick in the private parts of a minor girl would amount to unnatural offence in terms of the provisions of Section 377 of IPC. 10. Before we proceed to discuss the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it would be pertinent to quote herein below, the penal provision in respect of Section 377 of IPC, which reads as follows. Section 377: Unnatural offence: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 11. Mr. AK Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the dictionary meaning of the word 'carnal' appearing in Section 377 of IPC, submitted that 'carnal' intercourse against the order of nature would not only mean introduction of penis into the anus or mouth of the victims, but it relates to crude sexual pleasure, which may not be attended by sexual connection. According to Mr. Bhuyan, if the dominant intention of the offender is to derive sexual pleasure by inserting a stick in the vagina, the offence under Section 377 of IPC gets attracted. 12. According to Mr. Bhuyan, if the dominant intention of the offender is to derive sexual pleasure by inserting a stick in the vagina, the offence under Section 377 of IPC gets attracted. 12. On a plain reading of the provision of the Section 377 of IPC, it is clear that the penal Section is intended to punish the offender, for the commission of the offence of unnatural sex and/or carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any male or female or animal. The offence includes sodomy, buggery and bestiality. The offence under Section 377 IPC is complete, when the person accused of the offence uses his sex organ or derives sexual satisfaction by committing any of the acts, which is against the order of nature and/or, if the sexual act or sexual satisfaction is derived or fulfilled by the accused person with a male or female or animal in an unnatural manner. Browsing on to the dictionary meaning of the words "carnal", "intercourse" and "sexual intercourse" separately, we find the following: "carnal" adj. relating to the appetites and passions of the body; sensual; fleshly amorous, animal, erotic, fleshly, impure, lascivious, lecherous, lewd, libidinous, licentious, lustful, prurient randy (informal, chiefly Brit.) raunchy (slang) salacious, sensual, sensuous, sexual, sexy (informal) steamy (informal) unchaste, voluptuous, wanton bodily, corporeal, earthly, human, mundane, natural, physical, profane, secular, sublunary, temporal, unregenerate, unspiritual, worldly "intercourse" association, commerce, communication communion, connection contact, converse, correspondence, dealings, intercommunication, trade, traffic, truck. "sexual intercourse" Intercourse is the act of having sex. "sexual intercourse" also means- Sexual intercourse is the physical act of sex between two people. 13. In constituting an offence of 'carnal intercourse' under Section 377 of IPC, penile penetration and/or use of sex organ by the offender on the body of the victim, howsoever, little it may be, in any opening or a hole and/or artificially made hole on any part of the body of the victim i.e. men, women or animal, for deriving sexual satisfaction is essential. Consequently, inserting fingers or body part or any other object in the vagina of the victim would complete the offence, if the intention of the offender is to derive sexual pleasure in an unnatural way. Such act of the offender would necessarily include connection of sex organ of the victim to derive his sexual pleasure. Consequently, inserting fingers or body part or any other object in the vagina of the victim would complete the offence, if the intention of the offender is to derive sexual pleasure in an unnatural way. Such act of the offender would necessarily include connection of sex organ of the victim to derive his sexual pleasure. Therefore, even for a failed attempt to commit this offence, attempt to connect with the sex organ with an intention of deriving sexual pleasure as narrated above, would be essential. Unnatural penile penetration or use of sex organ on any part of the body of the women, men or animal, to derive sexual satisfaction, is an essential ingredient. Further, the dominant intention of the offender has to be to derive sexual pleasure by using his own sex organ or the sex organ of the victim, in an unnatural way. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision reported in 2004 (5) SCC 518 : Sakshi Vs. Union of India submitted that the Government of India in its affidavit, so filed in connection with the said case, has approved and stated on oath that use of a stick in the private parts of the victim would constitute an offence under Section 377 of IPC. It has been depicted in the affidavit so submitted on behalf of the Government of India that penetration on the private parts other than penile/vaginal penetration is an unnatural offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakshi Vs. Union of India, (supra) has approvingly referred to the affidavit so submitted on behalf of the Government of India, which reads as follows: It is set out in the writ petition that the petitioner has noticed with growing concern the dramatic increase of violence, in particular, sexual violence against women and children as well as the implementation of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, namely, Sections 377, 375/376 and 354 by the respondent authorities. The existing trend of the respondent authorities has been to treat sexual violence, other than penile/vaginal penetration, as lesser offences falling under either Section 377 or 354 IPC and not as a sexual offence under Sections 375/376 IPC. The existing trend of the respondent authorities has been to treat sexual violence, other than penile/vaginal penetration, as lesser offences falling under either Section 377 or 354 IPC and not as a sexual offence under Sections 375/376 IPC. It has been found that offences such as sexual abuse of minor children and women by penetration other than penile/vaginal penetration, which would take any other form and could also be through use of objects whose impact on the victims is in no manner less than the trauma of penile/vaginal penetration as traditionally understood under Sections 375/376, have been treated as offences falling under Section 354 IPC as outraging the modesty of a woman or under Section 377 IPC as unnatural offences. ............... 7.1. In view of the Commission's conclusions regarding the purview of Section 377 IPC, the said section was clearly intended to punish certain forms of private sexual relations perceived as immoral. Despite the same, the petitioner submits, the respondent authorities have, without any justification, registered those cases of sexual violence which would otherwise fall within the scope and ambit of Sections 375/376 IPC, as cases of moral turpitude under Section 377 IPC. It is submitted that the respondent authorities and their agents have wrongly strained the language of Section 377 IPC intended to punish "homosexual" behaviour to punish more serious cases of sexual violence against women and children when the same ought to be dealt with as sexual offences within the meaning of Sections 375/376 IPC in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ............... 10. Counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 has been filed by Mrs. G. Mukherjee, Director in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is stated therein that Sections 375 and 376 have been substantially changed by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983. The same Act has also introduced several new sections viz. Sections 376-A, 376-B, 376-C and 376 IPC. These sections have been inserted with a view to provide special/adequate provisions for women and children. The term "rape" has been clearly defined under Section 375 IPC. Penetrations other than penile/vaginal penetration are unnatural sexual offences. Stringent punishments are provided for such unnatural offences under Section-377. The punishment provided under Section 377 is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Penetrations other than penile/vaginal penetration are unnatural sexual offences. Stringent punishments are provided for such unnatural offences under Section-377. The punishment provided under Section 377 is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 377 deals with unnatural offences and provides for a punishment as severe as that provided for rape in Section 376. Sections 354 and 506 have been framed with a view to punish lesser offence of criminal assault in the form of outraging the modesty of a woman, whereas Sections 376 and 377 provide stringent punishment for sexual offences. The types of several offences as mentioned by the petitioner i.e. penile/anal penetration, penile/oral penetration, finger/anal penetration, finger/vaginal penetration or object/vaginal penetration are serious sexual offences of unnatural nature and are to be covered under Section 377 which provides stringent punishment. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that offences under Section 377 are treated as lesser offences is incorrect. It is also submitted in the counter-affidavit that penetration of the vagina, anus or urethra of any person with any part of the body of another person other than penile penetration is considered to be unnatural and has to be dealt with under Section 377 IPC. Section 376(2)(f) provides stringent punishment for committing rape on a woman when she is under the age of 12 years. Child sexual abuse of any nature, other than penile penetration, is obviously unnatural and is to be dealt with under Section 377 IPC. It is farther submitted that Section 354 IPC provides for punishment for assault or criminal force to woman to outrage her modesty. Unnatural sexual offences cannot be brought under the ambit of this section. Rape defined under Section 375 is penile/vaginal penetration and all other sorts of penetration are considered to be unnatural sexual offences. Section 377 provides stringent punishment for such offences. It is denied that provisions of Sections 375, 376 and 377 are violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual penetration as penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal penetration and object and vaginal penetration are most unnatural forms of perverted sexual behaviour for which Section 377 provides stringent punishment. 15. Mr. It is denied that provisions of Sections 375, 376 and 377 are violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual penetration as penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal penetration and object and vaginal penetration are most unnatural forms of perverted sexual behaviour for which Section 377 provides stringent punishment. 15. Mr. M. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakshi (supra), apart from quoting and unquoting the affidavit so submitted on behalf of the Government of India, has not given a specific finding that use of and/or insertion of a stick in vagina, by the offender would constitute an offence under Section 377 of IPC. According to Mr. Bora, the Apex Court did not approve such legal interpretation as sought to be interpreted in this case by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel has referred to another case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011(6) SCC 261 : Childline India Foundation Vs. Allan John Waters to submit that if the accused abuses the victim sexually in any manner whatsoever it would constitute an offence under Section 377 of IPC. The relevant paragraphs of the Childline (supra), are depicted herein below: 32. PW 1 has stated before the trial Court as under: Duncan had sex with me on many occasions. He used to tell me to hold his penis and he also used to hold my penis. This must have taken place at least on 20 to 25 occasions. This happened at Murud (Janjira) Shelter Home as well as Colaba Shelter Home. Allan Waters also had sat with me on many occasions. He also used to tell me to hold his penis and he also used to hold my penis. Allan Waters also had sex with me at Colaba Shelter Home and also at Murud (Janjira) Shelter Home. Allan must have had sex with me on 10 to 15 occasions. Duncan Grant and Allan Waters also had a similar relationship with other boys. Accused Duncan and Allan Waters used to ask for fellatio with the other boys and not the other way round. I have seen, this happened, with my own eyes. I have seen this with respect to other boys named Babu, Kiran, Sai and Dhanraj. I know Sonu Thakur, Rasul Sheikh, Gopal Srivastava, Kranti Londhe. Accused Duncan and Allan Waters used to ask for fellatio with the other boys and not the other way round. I have seen, this happened, with my own eyes. I have seen this with respect to other boys named Babu, Kiran, Sai and Dhanraj. I know Sonu Thakur, Rasul Sheikh, Gopal Srivastava, Kranti Londhe. With the abovementioned boys also the same thing had happened and I had witnessed it. The abovementioned boys used to stay in the shelter home during the relevant period. When this happened for the first time with me I was aged about 14/15 years. Prior to that I had no knowledge about sex. When I had it for the first time I did not like it. Even though I did not like it, I stayed in the shelter home because it was my compulsion. I made a complaint to William about the conduct of Duncan Grant and Allan Waters. Accused 1 William used to beat us on flimsy grounds. He used to do caning. However, he never had sex either with me or with other boys. When I made a complaint to William (about Allan and Duncan), he told me not to divulge the said fact to anybody failing which he would beat me. On the day I was interrogated I had an injury on my right hand as William had bitten (sic beaten) me. I had taken medical treatment with respect to the said injury. ..................... 37. About Duncan, PW 4 has also deposed: Duncan used to beat me when I used to stay at Anchorage. Duncan used to remove all the clothes and by making me naked he used to beat me. Duncan used to hold my head between his thighs and then used to ask the monitor to beat me by a stick either 6 times at a time or 12 times at a time. In spite of my telling them not to beat me, they used to beat me. The same was the treatment given to the other boys residing in the Anchorage by Duncan. ............... 54. To attract the above offence, the following ingredients are required: (1) carnal intercourse, and (2) against the order of nature. Though the High Court has adverted to various dictionary meanings and decisions to hold that the offence has not been made out, we have extracted tire exact statements of the victims, PWs 1 and 4. ............... 54. To attract the above offence, the following ingredients are required: (1) carnal intercourse, and (2) against the order of nature. Though the High Court has adverted to various dictionary meanings and decisions to hold that the offence has not been made out, we have extracted tire exact statements of the victims, PWs 1 and 4. PW 1 has stated before the trial Court as under: (i) Duncan had sex with me on many occasions. He used to tell me to hold his penis and he also used to hold my penis. (ii) Allan Waters also had sex with me on many occasions. He also used to tell me to hold his penis and he also used to hold my penis. (iii) Duncan Grant and Allan Waters also had a similar relationship with other boys. Accused Duncan and Allan Waters used to ask for fellatio with the other boys Duncan Grant and Allan Waters used to do fellatio with the other boys and not the other way round. I have seen this happened with my own eyes. (iv) Accused William used to beat us on flimsy grounds. He used to do caning. However, he never had sex with me or with other boys. When I made a complaint to William (about Allan and Duncan), he told me not to divulge the said fact to anybody failing which he would beat me. 17. As a matter of fact penetration of any object by the offender into the sex organ with an intention to derive sexual pleasure is sufficient to constitute the sexual connection against the order of nature necessary to constitute the offence under Section 377 I.P.C. Therefore, abusing sex organ with an intention to derive sexual pleasure apart from establishing sexual connection it would also be a carnal intercourse against the 'order of nature'. The carnal intercourse includes a set of sex acts that include sodomy and/or oral sex, or any such acts, which involves use of sex organ of the male, or female or animal, for deriving sexual pleasure in an unnatural manner, which also includes use of sex organ of the offender in an unnatural way on the victims i.e. man, woman or animal, for deriving sexual pleasure. 18. 18. On careful evaluation of the entire aspect of the matter, upon going through the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that carnal intercourse includes a set of sex acts which involves use of sex organ of the male or female or animal, for deriving sexual pleasure. Use of sex organ by the offender is essential to commit an unnatural offence against the nature, in terms of Section 377 I.P.C. where dominant intention of the offender is to derive unnatural sexual satisfaction. If the offender with intention to derive sexual satisfaction repeatedly inserts any object in the sex organ of the victim and consequently derives sexual pleasure, such act would constitute as a carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Therefore, if dominant intention of the offender is to derive sexual satisfaction by unnatural way, such act of the offender would attract the ingredient of offence under Section 377 of IPC. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that use or insertion of any object in the sex organ of man, woman or animal with dominant intention to derive sexual satisfaction is also an unnatural form of perverted sexual behaviour against the order of nature which would attract Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. However, in the instant case, since evidence on record do not show that the accused with dominant intention to derive sexual satisfaction had inserted the stick in the sex organ of the victim. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to reconsideration of framing of charge under Section 377 of IPC against the accused/petitioner is not tenable. 21. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition submitted on behalf of the complainant/petitioner. 22. Resultantly, the criminal petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated. Send back the LCR immediately. Petition dismissed.