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.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. V. S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2008 and the order of sentence dated 25.04.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2007 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Sections 376 /511 of IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 448 of IPC and R.I. for one year under Section 323 of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. In the present case, F.I.R. has been registered on the written report dated 19.07.2007 by father of victim who allegedly stated therein that on last Thursday i.e. on 12.07.2007 at about 10:30 P.M., Ravi Mahato (appellant herein) entered into his house and extinguished Diya and pressed mouth of his daughter with bad intent, while she was sleeping as he himself and other family members went to water tap to clean their hands and legs. When victim shouted, then accused fled away but Kedar Singh and, his wife while returning towards home from water tap, have seen the accused in electric light.

It is further alleged that when complaint was made to the family member of Ravi Mahato, he visited informant’s vegetable shop on number of occasions and extended threat to liquidate him. Today, i.e. on 19.07.2007, the accused entered into his house and given fist blow to his son and chased him by taking knife in his hand but father of the accused came in between, as such, he could not give a knife blow to informant.

4. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were read over to accused and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To conceal the identity of victim, her name, name of her parents and brother are not being disclosed in this judgment.

6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. They are P.W. – 1, father of the victim, P.W. – 2 Gopal Pandey (neighbourer), P.W. – 3 is the mother of the victim, P.W. – 4 is the brother of the victim, P.W. – 5 is the victim (name concealed), P.W. – 6 Kedar Singh is the neighbour of the victim, P.W. – 7 Kasmuddin Ansari is the Investigating Officer. Apart from ocular evidence, prosecution has also brought on record the written report as Exhibit – 1 and formal F.I.R. as Exhibit – 2.

In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the allegation leveled against him. Defence has also brought on record the evidence of three witnesses. They are D.W. – 1 Jitu Kumar, D.W. – 2 Chandradeo Prasad and D.W. – 3 Arbind Mahato.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, learned Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376 /511/448/323 of IPC, against which accused has preferred the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a false case lodged against the appellant, as the appellant used to ask the son of the informant not to indulge in gambling. It has also been pointed out to this Court that there is no plausible explanation of seven days delay in lodging the present F.I.R. as the incident is allegedly said to be of 12.07.2007.

Learned counsel further poi