The Rajasthan High Court recently altered the conviction of a man charged with a sexual offense involving a six-year-old girl. While the court acquitted him of the charge of attempted rape, it convicted him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging the modesty of a minor.
Case Background
The incident dates back to March 9, 1991, when the accused, Suwalal, allegedly attempted to sexually assault a minor. The victim’s grandfather lodged a complaint stating that Suwalal had taken the six-year-old girl away with the intent to rape her. However, when the girl raised an alarm, villagers rushed to the scene and rescued her.
The accused was convicted of attempted rape by the Tonk Sessions Court and sentenced to three and a half years of rigorous imprisonment. However, Suwalal appealed the conviction, claiming that there had been no attempt to rape.
Court’s Analysis of the Case
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court reviewed the case and the statements provided by the victim. The court observed that while Suwalal removed the minor’s innerwear and undressed himself, these actions did not constitute an attempt to rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC.
For an offense to be classified as an attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that the act progressed beyond mere preparation and demonstrated a clear intent to commit the crime. The court, referring to legal precedents, including the Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir case, noted that Suwalal’s actions had not crossed the line from preparation to actual attempt.
Conviction Under Section 354 IPC
Although the court acquitted Suwalal of the charge of attempted rape, it ruled that his actions amounted to outraging the modesty of the minor under Section 354 IPC. The court concluded that the act of removing the girl’s innerwear with the intent to indecently assault her was sufficient to convict him of this lesser offense.
Justice Dhand further noted that Suwalal had already served about two and a half months in jail in 1991 and decided not to send him back to prison given the passage of time—more than 33 years since the incident.
Legal Distinction Between Preparation and Attempt
The court emphasized the distinction between preparation and attempt in criminal law, which is crucial in determining the severity of the offense. The court also cited a 1996 Orissa High Court ruling, which held that the removal of a victim’s saree, followed by the accused fleeing upon being spotted, did not amount to attempted rape but was an act of indecent assault.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court modified Suwalal’s sentence, convicting him of outraging the modesty of a minor under Section 354 IPC. This case highlights the importance of the legal distinction between mere preparation and an actual attempt to commit a crime, as well as the implications for the accused.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
