IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Dinesh Deshmukh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 901 of 2002
Decided on : 23-08-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376 and 511 – Criminal Appeal against conviction for attempted rape – Conviction upheld as evidence established attempt to commit rape despite lack of penetration – Medical examination found no signs of rape but corroborated victim's account of attempted assault – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1, 11, 18, 19)
(B) Evidence – Credibility of victim – Testimony of victim and supporting witnesses found credible and consistent, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case: The appellant was convicted for attempting to rape a six-year-old girl, who reported the incident to her mother after returning from the appellant's house. Medical examination revealed no signs of rape but corroborated the victim's account of the assault.
Findings of Court: The trial court's conviction was based on credible evidence from the victim and supporting witnesses, confirming the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to commit rape.
Issues: Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish an attempt to commit rape under IPC Sections 376 and 511.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that penetration is not necessary for a conviction under Section 376/511 IPC; the act of rubbing the penis against the victim's private parts constituted an attempt to commit rape.
Result: Criminal appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2002 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2002 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and six months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine 1 month rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 21.11.2001 at about 7.00 AM, the victim girl, who was aged about six years old at the relevant time was residing adjacent to the house of the appellant had gone to the house of the appellant for playing. Further case of the prosecution is that after returning from the house of the appellant, while crying the victim girl told her mother that her undergarment was wet and there was some spot in it. Subsequently, her mother asked her regarding wetness of her undergarment then she informed that present appellant has laid down her on the bed and forcibly rubbed his erected penis on her private part but failed to penetrate the same into the vagina, which has caused swelling on her private part. At the same time, her uncle came there then the she disclosed the incident to him also. Thereafter, at about 2.50 PM, report was lodged by Urmila (PW-3) in Police Station Bhilai Nagar. Based upon which, FIR (Ex.P-7) under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the appellant and the matter was investigated. During investigation, victim was referred for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Sugam Sawant (PW-9) at about 7.30 PM wherein it was found that there was no sign of external or internal injury on the victim and her hymen was found intact. The Doctor (PW-9) opined that no sign of rape on the body of the victim was found. The cloth of the victim was seized vide (Ex.P-8) on 21.11.2001 and the same was sent for chemical examination and report of chemical examination under (ExP-10) was received. Map Ex.P-1 was prepared. Thereafter, the police arrested the appellant and sent him for medical examination. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durg which was registered as Sessions Case No. 51 of 2002.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined in all 9 witnesses, Nestor Kujur (PW-1), victim (PW-2), mother of the victim Urmila (PW-3), Bharat Deshmukh (PW-4), Upendra Kumar Deshmukh (PW-5), Kheman Prashad (PW-6), I.P. Khattar (PW-7), Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-8), Dr. Smt. Sugam Sawant (PW-9) and exhibited the documents Map (Ex.P-1), request letter for examination of accused (Ex.P-2), examination of seized articles (Ex.P-3), arrest panchanama (Ex.P-4), arrest memo (Ex.P-5), seizure memo (Ex.P-6), FIR (Ex. P-7), seizure memo (Ex.P-8), MLC of victim (Ex.P-9), report (Ex.P-10), examination of accused (Ex.P-11), examination of cloth of the appellant (Ex.P-12).
4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined victim as PW-2 who has narrated the incident and has stated that the appellant has taken her in the bed room where appellant has laid down her on the bed and forcibly rubbed his erected penis on the private part of the girl causing pain and wetness of the undergarment. She has also stated that the victim could resist because of threat. She has also stated that she has not stated anything to other family members of the appellant but informed the incident to her mother. Thereafter, FIR has been lodged. The victim was cross-examined and in paragraph-6, she has stated that when the appellant got on top of the victim and reiterated the incident in the cross examination, as she has stated that half centimeter in circle of her undergarment was wetted.
Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of A.P. (2004) 3 SCC 602
Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab (2011) 13 SCC 705
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra alias Golu reported in 2022(12) SCC 442
Attempted rape under IPC Sections 376 and 511 established through credible victim testimony, despite lack of penetration.
Partial penetration is sufficient for a conviction of attempted rape, reaffirming the necessity of proven intent to commit the offence.
Insufficient evidence for conviction under IPC Section 376(1) necessitates conviction for attempted rape under Section 376/511 due to partial penetration.
(1) There is a visible distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’ to commit an offence and it all depends on statutory edict coupled with nature of evidence produced in a case.(2) What constitut....
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 distinction between preparation and attempt in sexual offenses requires clear evidence of intent and action beyond mere preparation.
Pre-2013 IPC requires penile penetration for rape conviction; contusion with intact hymen and witness accounts establish only attempt under Section 511 read with 376 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that corroboration is not required for the testimony of the victim in case of rape if the evidence is of sterling quality. The judgme....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.