Mere Assault On Woman Without Specific Overt Act Towards Commission Of Rape, Is Not Attempt To Rape: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an assault on a woman, in the absence of any specific overt act towards the commission of rape, would not by itself constitute an attempt to rape.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava altered the conviction of a man from attempt to rape under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code to the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 IPC.
The appeal was filed against a 2005 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, which had convicted the appellant under Sections 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000.
According to the prosecution, the woman was cutting fodder grass in her field when the appellant approached her. She alleged that he rushed towards her and pushed her to the ground. She managed to escape and started running away, but was allegedly caught again and pushed into a paddy field. The woman raised an alarm, following which the appellant fled. She returned home and narrated the incident to her sister-in-law and later to her husband and father-in-law. A Panchayat was convened the next day, after which she approached the police and a case was registered under Sections 376/511 IPC.
The appellant challenged his conviction before the High Court, contending, among other things, that the trial court had placed undue reliance on the woman's testimony despite contradictions between her statement in the FIR and her evidence during trial.
On examining the evidence, the High Court noted that the woman's account was essentially that she had been pushed to the ground twice. However, it found no specific allegation as to any overt act committed by the appellant towards the commission of rape. The Court observed:
“The evidence of the prosecutrix, when considered in its entirety, does not disclose any specific or overt act on the part of the appellant which can be said to constitute an act towards the commission of rape so as to attract the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. The conduct of the appellant simply shows that he has committed some act of assault with the prosecutrix, which may likely to outrage her modesty and nothing overt act has been committed towards commission of the rape. Therefore, at best the offence falls under Section 354 of the I.P.C.”
The Court further noted that although the woman consistently stated that the appellant had caught hold of her and pushed her to the ground, there was no specific evidence of an attempt to have sexual intercourse or of any act sufficiently proximate to the commission of rape.
It also took note of the woman's immediate disclosures to her family members, which, according to the Court, indicated an assault or “hathapai” and an attempt to outrage her modesty rather than an attempt to commit rape.
At the same time, the High Court found that the woman's consistent account of being caught and pushed to the ground was sufficient to establish that the appellant assaulted her intending to outrage, or knowing that his act was likely to outrage, her modesty.
The Court therefore held that the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were made out and altered the appellant's conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC to one under Section 354 IPC.
Case Title: Shankar Ram v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 725 of 2005
Appearance: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani for the Appellant; Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. for the State.