SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(MP) 196

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. D. JHA
ANKARIYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
C. A. 183 Of 1986
Decided On : 07/21/1989

Advocates Appeared:
D.D.Vyas, JAISINGH DESAI

The distinction between attempt and preparation in the context of the offense of rape, and the factors to be considered in determining whether an accused person had the intent to complete the offense.

Headnote:

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - SECTION 354 IPC - ASSAULT OR USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE TO WOMAN WITH INTENT TO OUTRAGE HER MODESTY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ATTEMPT AND PREPARATION - FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 376/511 IPC for attempting to rape the prosecutrix, Phoolbai. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a stranger to Phoolbai, came to her house and requested to stay for the night. He was allowed to stay and they all slept in the same room. In the middle of the night, the appellant removed Phoolbai's cloth and sat on her waist. Phoolbai pushed him away and cried out to her husband, who woke up and saw the appellant sitting on Phoolbai. The appellant was taken to the village patel and then to the police station, where a First Information Report was lodged.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was consistent and reliable, and that the appellant's defense was not credible. The court held that the appellant had committed the offense of assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty under Section 354 IPC, but not the offense of attempt to commit rape under Section 376 IPC.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to commit rape or only preparation for the same. 2. Whether the appellant was guilty of the offense under Section 354 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between attempt and preparation, holding that the appellant's actions amounted to preparation for rape but not an attempt. The court relied on the fact that the appellant did not penetrate the prosecutrix and that he was interrupted before he could complete his act. The court also considered the appellant's lack of a weapon and the presence of the prosecutrix's husband in the same room as factors indicating that the appellant did not have the intent to complete the rape.

Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 376/511 IPC and instead convicted under Section 354 IPC. He was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.

S. D. JHA, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Ankariya S/o Hardi challenges his conviction u/s, 376/511 I. P. C. and sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him by additional Judge Camp Barwani of the Court of Session Judge, Mandleshwar by his judgment dated 9-4-1986.

( 2 ) THE case for prosecution is that appellant (hereinafter called 'the accused') was stranger to prosecutrix Phoolbai (P. W. 3 ). In the night of incident on 25-6-1985 the accused went to Renja's house and represented that he is a surpunch of village 'aamjhiri Gumadia' and his name is Ankaria. He was afraid as it was dark he requested Renja to allow him to sleep in his house that night. Renja acceded to his request gave him food and piece of cloth to lie on. The three accused, Phoolbai (P. W. 3) and her husband Renja (P. W. 4) slept in the same room "tapra". At about 11-00 p. m. in the night, Phoolbai (P. W. 3) was awakened and she found the cord of her petiticoat loosened and the accused trying to sit on her waist. She pushed the accused and cried out to her husband, who got up and lighted the lamp "chimni". Phoolbai (P. W. 3) complained to Renja (P. W. 4) that the accused was trying to molest her, had removed her cloth and sat on her waist. They narrated that they then took the accused to Hathha (P. W. 6) patel of the village, who asked them to lodge a report at the out-post. While going to the out-post on the way, they met three police-men who took them to out-post, Chachria where Phoolbai (P. W. 3) lodged First information report Ex. P/3, which was unwritten down by Sohanlal (P. W. 8) and offence u/s. 376/511 I. P. C. was registered, and accused sent for medical examination After investigation challan was put up against the accused. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge u/s. 376/511. In his examination while denying material allegations, he stated that on the date of incident, he had drunk liquor, he had 500/- rupees in his pocket, which Renja had seen. On Renja's asking he drank more liquor. It was raining. When he was going to his house, Renja (P. W. 4) asked him to stay for the night, Renja quarrelled with him about money, snatched his money, slapped him and lodged false report against him, about injuries on his person he stated that it was due to beating by police. He did not examine any witness in defence.

( 4 ) SHRI Jaisingh learned counsel for the appellant submitted that whole story was unnatural and it was sheer concoction. According to him, no man, while husband of a woman was sleeping nearby would try to molest his wife. The accused was not armed. It is unreasonable that an unarmed man would dare to make an attempt to commit rape on Phoolbai when her husband was sleeping nearby. It also appears unnatural that the accused would remain at the place while Renja lighted a lamp and Sukhlal came to the place. According to him, whole story is a pure fabrication and the accused deserves an acquittal. In the alternative, he submitted that the offence if any made out against the accused would not be one u/s. 376 IPC attempt to commit rape but one u / S. 354 I PC assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. In support of this argument, Shri Jaisingh relied on Phanu @ Chhotelal v. State of M. P. (1972 JLJ 124 ). The point for determination is whether any and if so what offence is made out against the appellant.

( 5 ) PHOOLBAI (P. W. 3) has stated about accused coming to her house, requesting for stay for the night and sleeping at her house. She also stated that in the midnight accused had removed cord of her peticoat and was sitting on her waist and that she pushed him, cried out to her husband. Her husband Renja (P. W. 4) corroborating his wife Phoolbai (P. W. 3) speaks of allowing the accused to stay in his house for the night. He further states that in the midnight he saw his wife naked and the accused sitting holding his wife. He cried out to Sukhlal and on his coming narrated the incident to him. Sukhalal (










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top