IMPORTANT POINTS
Attempt to commit an offence begins with doing an act with the necessary intention which can be inferred from conduct of the accused.
Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if duly explained.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 27.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal no.144 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order dated 08.05.1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in S.T. No. 36 of 1991 convicting the accused for offences under Section 354 and Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for commission of offence under Section 354 IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 200/for commission of offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC.

2. The brief facts according to the prosecution are that the complainant-victim is the aunt of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant had earlier also committed indecent behavior with the complainant-victim, which is the subject matter of another criminal proceeding. On 12.01.1991, the accused-appellant after seeing the complainant-victim alone took advantage of the same and attempted to molest her. On the same date at around 10:00 P.M while the complainant-victim along with her daughters was sleeping in her house, the accused-appellant entered into the house of the victim in a drunken state. While the complainant-victim was getting up from her bed, the accused-appellant pounced upon her making her fall into the bed. The accused-appellant thereafter lifted her petticoat, sat upon her and attempted to commit rape. Upon hearing the noise, the daughter of the complainant-victim (P.W.2) got up and beseeched the accused-appellant to let go of her mother. Upon hearing the commotion, certain other villagers interfered, accused-appellant ran away after threatening the complainant-victim. Thereafter, the complainant-victim narrated the entire incident to her husband, pursuant to which they approached the Court of the CJM to file the complaint on 16.01.1991.

3. The trial court, vide order dated 08.05.1992, convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 354, pursuant to which he was directed to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2006. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the accused-appellant approached this Court by way of present appeal.

4. The counsel on behalf of the accused-appellant submitted that accused-appellant has been framed by the complainant-victim pursuant to certain existing enmity. Further, it was pleaded that the FIR was registered with a delay of 3 days and the prosecution has failed to explain the same. Lastly, the evidence of the witnesses does not suggest any liability for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of IPC.

5. On the contrary, the counsel for the State has supported the concurrent judgments of conviction passed against the accused-appellant.

6. Heard counsel appearing for both parties. In the present case, the statement rendered by the complainant-victim (P.W.1) is corroborated by the daughter of the complainant-victim (P.W. 2) who is an eyewitness to the said incident, husband of the complainant-victim (P.W.3) and independent witness Sohan Lal (P.W.4). The courts below have observed that although these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, they have remained persistent in their statements and there was no material contradiction so as to raise any doubt regarding their credibility.

7. The statement of the complainant-victim reveals that the accused-appellant had attempted to molest her on numerous occasions. In order to attract culpability u