Case at a glance: The Patna High Court has set aside a conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC, holding that the evidence showed no overt act towards penetration beyond preparation. It convicted the appellant instead under the pre-2013 Section 354 IPC, upheld his conviction for house-trespass, reduced the sentence to the period undergone and directed a fine of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the victim as compensation.
The complainant, a widowed labourer, alleged that at night on 8 February 2010 the appellant entered her thatched house, pressed her mouth and raped her, and that villagers caught and beat him. When police did not register a case, she complained to the CJM, Begusarai; the complaint was sent to police under Section 156(3) CrPC and charges were framed under Sections 376/511 and 448 IPC.
In 2013 the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Begusarai convicted him, sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376/511 and six months under Section 448, concurrently. He appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did the evidence establish an attempt to commit rape, or only conduct falling short of an attempt?
Attempt Versus Preparation
The Court held it was proved that the appellant entered the house at night and was found there; PW-1's evidence was not cross-examined on this and he offered no explanation under Section 313. The two-day delay was not fatal (Gurmit Singh), nor was the non-examination of the IO or villagers. The prosecutrix was reliable on the core facts, but beyond that she was inconsistent, and “There is not even a whisper that the appellant undressed himself or her.”
Rejecting the trial court's view that she could not distinguish rape from attempt, the Court said the question is whether there was an overt act towards penetration. Relying on Aman Kumar, Tarkeshwar Sahu and Madan Lal, it found nothing beyond preparation. The act did outrage her modesty (Rupan Deol Bajaj); under Article 20(1), the pre-2013 Section 354, which had no minimum sentence, applied. Conviction for this minor offence was permissible under Sections 222(2) and 386(b)(ii) CrPC (Dalbir Singh).
What the Court Actually Held
- The conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC was set aside.
- The appellant was convicted under Section 354 IPC (pre-amendment); the Section 448 conviction was affirmed.
- Sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
- A fine of Rs 25,000 was imposed under Section 354, payable to the prosecutrix as compensation within eight weeks, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It restates the line between preparation and attempt in sexual offences.
- It applies Article 20(1) to the pre-2013 version of Section 354.
- It combines a reduced sentence with compensation to the victim under Section 357 CrPC.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Test the evidence for an overt act towards penetration, not the label the complainant uses.
- Consider whether a conviction for a minor offence is the realistic outcome.
For Prosecutors
- Lead evidence of each act said to go beyond preparation.
- Seek compensation for the victim under Section 357 CrPC.
Key Takeaways
- Attempt requires an overt act beyond preparation.
- The prosecutrix was reliable on the core facts.
- The pre-2013 Section 354 applied under Article 20(1).
- The victim was awarded Rs 25,000 compensation.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Court found no overt act towards penetration beyond preparation.
No. He was convicted of outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC and of house-trespass.
The offence occurred in 2010, before the 2013 amendment, and Article 20(1) bars a heavier penalty retrospectively.
Conclusion
The judgment applies settled Supreme Court tests carefully while ensuring the victim receives compensation.
Practical takeaway: In attempt cases, focus on what was actually done, not on how the act is described.