The judgment establishes the importance of the prosecutrix's credible testimony, corroboration from witnesses, and medical evidence in cases of attempted rape, emphasizing the distinction between molestation and attempted rape.

A.N. JINDAL, J.

Anand Parkash, accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was prosecuted for attempting to commit rape upon his step daughter. Consequently, on trial, vide judgment dated 18.04.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-under Sections 376/511 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 506 IPC.

Here is a case, where the accused was the stepfather. Prosecutrix, a girl about 15 years old, is the daughter of Anuradha Bhardwaj. Besides prosecutrix, Anuradha had two other sons from her first husband, on whose death, she re-married with the accused by way of Court marriage 5/6 years prior to the occurrence. Anuradha was working as midwife in her own shop at Farrukhnagar, whereas accused was not doing any job. The prosecutrix, in her statement made on 30.04.2002, further disclosed that in the absence of other family members, the accused used to indulge with her in uncalled for activities and molest her. He also used to beat her and her brothers and threatened them if they would disclose about the factum of molestation to somebody, then he would kill them.

On 23.04.2002 at about 5.30 P.M., when the prosecutrix was taking bath in the bathroom having a curtain, the accused entered the bathroom, lifted her despite the protest raised by her and took her to the bedroom. He stripped off himself and attempted to commit rape upon her. However, on account of the cries raised by her, he left the place and threatened her, if she had disclosed about the incident to anybody else, then he would kill her mother Anuradha (PW-6) and her brothers. However, the prosecutrix disclosed about the act of the accused to her mother, who in turn lodged protest to the accused, but the accused in turn gave beatings to her and her son Ashok Kumar with iron rod. Thereafter, she went to the police station. On the aforesaid statement made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and investigated. Statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 161Cr.P.C. were recorded. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared.

The Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge-report. On commitment, the accused was charged for the offences under Sections 376/511, 506 and 323 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined SI Rajiv Kumar (PW-1), who stated that on completion of investigation, he had prepared the charge report. Sarwan Kumar, draftsman (PW-2) proved the scaled site plan (Ex.PA).

Dr. Dinesh, Medical Officer, CHC Farrukh Nagar (PW-3) had examined Anand Parkash-accused and found that he was quite fit to perform sexual intercourse. Dr. Narender Singh Lauhora (PW-4), who had medico-legally examined Anuradha on 30.04.2002 at 7.40 P.M., observed as under:-

“1. A contusion 7 cms x 4 cms was present on the lateral side of left knee joint, bluish in colour, left knee joint locked and movement was restricted. Advised x-ray of left knee joint AP and lateral view.

2. A contusion 8 cms x 4 cms was present on the posterior aspect of arm of right side below the deletoid region, bluish in colour.

3. A contusion 8 cms x 4 cms was present on the left shoulder region at the lateral side, left deletoid region bluish in colour. Advised x-ray of left shoulder region.

4. A contusion 3.5 cms x 0.5 cm was present on the right cheek below the right eye, bluish in colour.

5. A contusion 8 cms x 4 cms was present at the middle and posterior aspect of left thigh, bluish in colour.”

Injuries No.2, 4 and 5 were declared simple while injuries No.1 and 3 were kept under observation for want of x-ray report. He also opined that injuries were the result of blunt weapon and probable duration was 36 hours. He proved car