A conviction for attempt to rape (S. 376/511 IPC) requires a specific overt act proximate to the crime; in the absence of such evidence, but where assault with intent to outrage modesty is proven, the conviction must be modified to Section 354 IPC.

[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.06.2005 and 08.06.2005 respectively, passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 62 of 2004]

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 15.07.2026 Pronounced on 12/08/2026

1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.06.2005 and 08.06.2005 respectively, passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 62 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.10.2003 at about 01:30 P.M., prosecutrix was in her field near the Rehat, where her devar (brother-in-law), Santosh Uraon was also sitting with another man. It is alleged that she was talking with her devar, in the meantime, the another man sitting with her devar also started putting some informal questions to her thereafter, Santosh Uraon left the place and went to his house and prosecutrix engaged in cutting fodder grasses. In the meantime, the another man sitting with her devar rust towards her and tried to commit sexual assault pushing on ground anyhow she escaped herself from the clutches of the accused and started fleeing away, but she was again caught by the accused and pushed in her paddy field and tried to commit sexual assault with her. The prosecutrix raised alarm then the accused fled away. The prosecutrix immediately rushed to her home and narrated the above incident to her gotani, Sukhani Devi and in the evening, her husband returned then she disclosed this incident to her husband and father-in-law and also her devar, Santosh Uraon. She also asked her devar, Santosh about the name of the person who was sitting with him near the Rehat just before the occurrence then Santosh Uraon disclosed the name of the accused as Shankar Ram of village Teliyadih. It is further alleged that in the next day, the family members of prosecutrix along with other villagers went to village Teliyadih to protest against the act of the accused and also convened a Panchayat in the village. She was also called at the Panchayat to identify the miscreant. Upon identification of the accused by the prosecutrix, the father of the accused told her to do whatever she likes. Hence, she went to Chhatarpur police station along with her husband and father-in-law to lodge this case.

On the basis of above information, Chhatarpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2003 dated 04.10.2003 was registered for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. against the accused.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 62 of 2004 was registered. The accused denied from the charge leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by prosecution:-

(i) P.W.-1-Victim

(ii) P.W.-2-Lal Je