Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-11-2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur in Crl. Appeal No. 4(S-1)/2007. By the said judgment, learned appellate court dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner, upheld and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner u/s 377/511 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that the petitioner Rajendra Kumar Dey called the victim to his house on the pretext of some works. When the victim went to his house at about 6.30 in the evening, he took him to a dark room. The petitioner removed his pant and asked him to touch his male organ but he denied. When the accused tried to commit some obscene act with him, the victim left the place and ran away. Mother of the victim lodged the FIR, on the basis of which, police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner u/s 377/511 IPC.

3. The petitioner stood trial for offence u/s 377/511 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. The appeal filed by the petitioner stood dismissed.

4. Learned counsel Mr. G. Choudhury for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mrs. S. Jahan for the State-respondent were heard.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently arguing for acquittal of the petitioner submits, that there was no evidence to prove the attempt to commit an offence u/s 377 IPC and as such, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was illegal and warrants interference. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Aman Kumar and Ors.- VS- State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379.

6. The petitioner was convicted for attempt to commit an offence u/s 377/511 IPC. Though Section 511 IPC provided punishment for attempt to commit an offence for which no express provision for punishment is made, the 'attempt' has not been defined in the statute. However, the illustrations to Section 511 IPC can be looked into, which may throw some light as to what constitute an 'attempt'. Following are the two illustrations appended to Section 511 IPC.

"Illustrations : (a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under this section.

(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z's having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section."

7. The above illustrations suggest, that a person shall be liable for attempt to commit a particular offence under Section 511 IPC, when the offender with requisite intention, does any act or a series of act, which leads inevitably to the commission of the offence, unless something, beyond control of the offender or something which he never foresaw happens to prevent the completion of the offence. In order to understand the 'attempt' to commit an offence, one has to keep in mind, that there are four stages in the commission of offence, i.e.

(i) intention to commit the offence, (ii) preparation to commit the offence, (iii) attempt to commit the offence & (iv) commission of the offence. In order to find out whether certain facts constitute the offence of 'attempt', the court needs to distinguish between the various stages of commission of an offence, though the line between two different stages may be very thin.

8. The Apex Court, in Abayananda Mishra, 1961 AIR (SC) 1698 observed that there is a thin line between preparation for and attempt to commit an offence. Undoubtedly a culprit must intend to commit offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter, attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds the offence is committed. If he fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said t