Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Raj Kumar @ Seni Mahto, Son Of Sh. Saheb Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.
Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Dinkar Kumar and Mr. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter refereed as ‘Cr.P.C’) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2013 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura in Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2012 arising out of Shekhopursarai P.S. Case 02 of 2012 / G.R No. 18 of 2012 whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter refereed as ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, one month imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and further six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of non-payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences shall run currently.
3. The case of prosecution in b
Conviction under Section 354 of IPC upheld when testimonies of victim and witnesses were consistent and reliable, distinguishing preparation from an attempt in sexual offences.
The distinction between 'attempt' and 'preparation' in criminal law leads to the conclusion that actions lacking overt intent to complete the crime cannot sustain a conviction for attempted rape, but....
The court found that lack of corroborative evidence for conviction under Sections 376 and 511 IPC necessitated a modification to Section 354 IPC, reflecting insufficient evidence for an attempted rap....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of direct evidence to prove the awareness of the victim's caste for conviction under section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedu....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 354 IPC, concluding that the appellant's actions constituted an outrage of modesty, supported by the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence.
The court clarified the distinction between attempted rape and assault, ruling that the appellant's actions constituted assault under IPC Section 354, not attempted rape under Section 376.
The absence of penetration negates conviction under Section 376/511, but the act of attempting to outrage modesty warrants conviction under Section 354 IPC.
Partial penetration is sufficient for a conviction of attempted rape, reaffirming the necessity of proven intent to commit the offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
