Summary
The Court restored the trial court’s conviction for attempted rape of two children under the IPC provisions applicable to the 2005 incident. The proved conduct had moved beyond preparation into deliberate acts reasonably proximate to completion of the offence. The victims’ reliable testimony was not undermined by a minor exaggeration in another child witness’s account. The High Court’s substitution of a Section 354 conviction was reversed, and the accused was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
Issues
- Whether the proved conduct amounted to attempted rape rather than preparation under the pre-2013 IPC provisions.
- Whether the asserted discrepancy in another child witness’s evidence undermined the victims’ testimony.
Provisions considered
- Sections 375 and 376(2)(f), as applicable to the 2005 incident, read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860The overt acts crossed the preparatory stage and constituted attempted rape under the historical statutory framework. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25)
Held
- Attempt required intent accompanied by acts moving directly towards commission after preparation. Whether that point had been crossed was a mixed question of law and fact, assessed from the conduct and surrounding circumstances; failure to complete the substantive offence did not preclude attempt liability. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20)
- The established sequence of isolating the children and carrying out further deliberate sexual acts was reasonably proximate to consummation and exceeded preparation. The trial court correctly applied the IPC definition in force at the time; the later expanded definition was not retrospectively applied. (¶¶ 15, 16, 19, 21, 24)
- Both victims gave reliable, natural accounts inspiring confidence. The perceived inconsistency concerning the other child witness’s presence was a minor exaggeration that did not displace the core disclosure evidence. Reliable victim testimony could itself sustain conviction absent cogent reasons requiring corroboration. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The High Court’s contrary assessment disregarded material evidence and was perverse. The trial court’s judgment, including the five-year rigorous-imprisonment sentence and fine, was restored. (¶¶ 4, 25)
Result
State appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and trial court judgment restored. Accused directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence; on failure, police directed to arrest him and submit a compliance report.