JAYAPRAKASH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68037

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J
JAYAPRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 412/2026

Important Points

The court affirmed that breaking into a residence at night and physically assaulting a sleeping woman constitutes an attempt to commit rape under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC, distinguishing 'attempt' from 'preparation' as an act done in partial execution of a criminal design.

Subject

Criminal Law - Offences Against the Human Body

Act Referred

Indian Penal Code: S.458, S.324, S.354, S.342, S.511, S.376, S.443, S.445
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.357(1)(b), S.428, S.357A, S.164, S.222

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 458, 324, 354, and 376 read with 511 - Lurking house-trespass by night - Voluntarily causing hurt - Outraging modesty of a woman - Attempt to commit rape - Section 511 applies where no express provision is made for the punishment of an attempt - Attempt begins where preparation ends; it requires intention, preparation, and an act towards the commission of the offence (Paras 18-21).

(B) Offence under Section 376 r/w 511 - An attempt consists of the intent to commit a crime, falling short of actual consummation, which would have resulted in the full crime if not prevented - Breaking into a residence at 2:00 AM, lying upon a sleeping woman, and catching her face constitutes an act towards the commission of rape, transitioning from preparation to attempt (Para 22).

(C) Section 458 - House-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint - Established when the accused commits house-breaking by night after making preparations to cause hurt or assault some person (Para 23).

(D) Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt - Proven where the accused causes bodily pain or injury voluntarily (Para 24). (E) Section 354 - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Modesty is a virtue attaching to a female owing to her sex; acts capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman amount to outraging her modesty (Para 25).

Facts of the case:
The accused broke open the kitchen door of a residence at 2:00 AM and entered the house while the victim was sleeping. He lay upon her body, caught hold of her face, and bit her on the cheek. The act was interrupted when the victim's son woke up and switched on the light, causing the accused to flee. The accused was subsequently apprehended by local residents.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution succeeded in proving the ingredients for offences punishable under Sections 458, 354, 324, and 376 read with 511 of the IPC. The trial court's findings of conviction were upheld, although the substantive sentence for the attempt to commit rape was reduced for leniency.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused under Sections 458, 354, 324, and 376 read with 511 of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal attempt is distinguished from preparation; it requires intention, preparation, and a subsequent act towards commission. Entering a home by force at night and physically restraining a sleeping woman demonstrates both the intention and the attempt to commit rape. House-breaking at night with preparatory acts for assault satisfies Section 458, while causing physical pain (biting) and using criminal force to outrage modesty satisfy Sections 324 and 354 respectively.

Result: Appeal allowed in part (sentence for Section 376 r/w 511 reduced from seven years to five years; other convictions and sentences confirmed).

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sreeraj M.D.
For the Respondents: Sajeev P K

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 04^th day of November, 2026

This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in S.C.No.363/2022 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Kottarakkara, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 31.12.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records of the Special Court.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 458, 324, 354, 342, 511 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter) by the appellant/accused.

4. The specific allegation is that at 2 o’clock on 10.09.2020, the appellant/accused with criminal intention, trespassed upon the residence of the victim, while she was sleeping, and attempted to commit rape on her.

5. The learned Special Judge recorded evidence. PW1 to PW14 were examined, Exts.P1 to P14 and MO1 were marked on the side of the prosecution. The contradictions were marked as Exts.D1 and D2 on the side of the defence.

6. After appreciation of evidence, learned Special Judge found that the appellant/accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 458, 354, 324 and 376 r/w 511 of the IPC while acquitting for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the IPC. Accordingly, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:

“The accused is thus sentenced to the following:-

(1) Simple imprisonment for five years and fine of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in default to further simple imprisonment of ten (10) months under section 458 of IPC.

(2) Simple imprisonment for two years and fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default for further simple imprisonment of four (4) months under section 354 of IPC;

(3) Simple imprisonment of one year under section 324 of IPC;

(4) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of ₹15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) in default to further simple imprisonment of one year under section 511 of 376 of IPC.

(5) Fine amount, if realized, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

(6) Sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

(7) Set off allowed under section 428 Cr.P.C. from 10.09.2020 to 01.12.2020 and from 11.04.2024 to till date (347 days).

(8) MO1 shall be destroyed as per rules after appeal period or disposal of appeal which ever is later.

(9) No recommendation is made under section 357A of Cr.P.C.”

7. Multifaceted contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused to contend that, going by the evidence of PW1, the same would not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW1, is not believable, to find any of the offences alleged to be committed, by the appellant It is submitted further that if at all any offence to be found from evidence, the same is an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused pressed for interference in the verdict impugned to set aside the same or to modify the same.

8. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor strongly resisted the contentions and submitted that, going by the evidence of PW1, the necessary ingredients to constitute all the offences found to have been committed by the appellant/accused by the learned Special Judge could be found. Accordingly, he submitted that no interference in the verdict under challenge is warranted in the facts of the case. It is pointed out that in the decision in Chandran v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 729], this Court while considering ingredients for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 of the IPC held in paragraph Nos.30 and 34 to justify his contentions, which reads as under:

“30. In Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar reported in [2006 KHC 1354 : (2006) 8 SCC 560], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the