LEGAL ISSUE: What constitutes an ‘attempt to commit rape’ versus ‘mere preparation’ under the Indian Penal Code?

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra Alias Golu

Judgment Date: 25 October 2021

Date of the Judgment: 25 October 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 716
Judges: Surya Kant, J., Hima Kohli, J.
Can actions like luring a minor, taking them to a secluded place, and undressing them be considered an ‘attempt to commit rape,’ or do they fall under ‘mere preparation’? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the legal boundaries between these two stages of a crime. This judgment is crucial in understanding the application of Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench comprised Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred approximately two weeks before December 20, 2005. Two minor girls, ‘X’ (PW-1), aged about 9 years, and ‘Y’ (PW-2), aged about 8 years, were playing ‘gilli-danda’ near the house of the accused, Mahendra alias Golu. The accused, who was familiar to the girls, enticed them with the promise of money. The girls followed him to his house, which was empty at the time. The accused then closed all the doors from the inside. He led the girls to a room, declared he would marry them, and then undressed PW-1. He made her lie on a cot and, after taking off his own clothes, rubbed his genitals against hers. He repeated this act with PW-2.

The girls, scared and shocked, started crying. The accused, fearing that neighbors might hear them, threatened them not to disclose the incident. However, after a few days, the girls confided in their friend ‘Z’ (PW-8). This led to the incident being revealed to the girls’ mothers. PW-2 told her mother (PW-6) about the incident during a religious gathering, and PW-1 told her mother (PW-3) the same evening. The mothers then informed their respective husbands, and an FIR was filed about 15 days after the incident.

Timeline:

Date Event
Approximately two weeks before 20.12.2005 Incident occurred where the accused lured two minor girls into his house.
20.12.2005 FIR was registered.
Trial Court Judgment The Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
08.10.2009 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh modified the Trial Court’s judgment, convicting the respondent under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code instead.
25.10.2021 The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s conviction.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh modified this judgment, setting aside the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC. Instead, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) and reduced the sentence to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. The High Court reasoned that the accused had not gone beyond the stage of preparation and did not intend to commit rape.

See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Treatment of Subscription Receipts: Peerless General Finance vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2019)

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code:

  • Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with the offense of rape. Specifically, Section 376(2)(f) addresses the situation where rape is committed on a woman who is under sixteen years of age. At the time of the incident, it stated that sexual intercourse with a woman below sixteen years, with or without her consent, amounted to ‘Rape’ and mere penetration was sufficient to prove such offence.
  • Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code: This section addresses attempts to commit offenses. It states, “whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both”. This section makes an attempt to commit a crime punishable, even if the crime is not completed.
  • Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.

Arguments

Arguments by the State:

  • The State argued that there were explicit allegations of ‘attempt to commit rape’ against the respondent.
  • The prosecution witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, had consistently supported the prosecution’s case and had clearly explained the details of the offense during their testimony.
  • The Trial Court had correctly convicted the respondent under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the High Court had unjustifiably modified this conviction.
  • The High Court had failed to appreciate the ingredients of ‘attempt’ to commit rape and had incorrectly categorized the actions as mere ‘preparation’.

Arguments by the Respondent:

  • The respondent argued that even if the prosecution’s case was accepted, the actions did not go beyond ‘preparation’ to commit rape.
  • The Trial Court had failed to distinguish between ‘attempt’ and ‘preparation’ and had wrongly convicted the respondent for ‘attempt’ to commit rape.
  • The High Court had rightly rectified the error and modified the conviction to an offense of ‘outraging the modesty’ of a woman under Section 354 of the IPC.
  • There were contradictions in the testimony of PW-8 compared to the victims, making the prosecution’s story doubtful.
  • The respondent relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana to emphasize the distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions by State Sub-Submissions by Respondent
Whether the act was an attempt to commit rape or mere preparation?
  • Explicit allegations of attempt to commit rape.
  • Victims’ consistent testimony.
  • Trial Court’s correct conviction.
  • High Court’s failure to appreciate ‘attempt’.
  • Actions did not go beyond ‘preparation’.
  • Trial Court’s failure to distinguish ‘attempt’.
  • High Court’s correct modification of conviction.
  • Contradictions in testimony of PW-8.
  • Reliance on Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

  1. Whether the offense proved to have been committed by the respondent amounts to ‘attempt’ to commit rape within the meaning of Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, or was it a mere ‘preparation’ which led to outraging the modesty of the victims?
See also  Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Dehradun: Manisha Jain vs. Rajeev Jindal (25 February 2022)

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether the offense was an attempt to commit rape or mere preparation? The Court held that the actions constituted an ‘attempt to commit rape’. The respondent’s actions went beyond mere preparation and were a direct step towards committing rape. The court noted that the respondent’s actions of luring the girls, taking them inside, closing the doors, undressing them, and rubbing his genitals against theirs were all deliberate steps towards committing the offense.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How it was used
Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379 Supreme Court of India The Court discussed the distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’ as explained in this case. The Court reiterated that an attempt begins when preparations are complete and the culprit commences an act towards the commission of the offense.
Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1997) 7 SCC 677 Supreme Court of India The Court referred to this case to highlight that the degree of the act is decisive in differentiating between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’. It was stated that if an accused strips a girl naked, makes her lie down, undresses himself, and rubs his erect penis on her private parts, it is an attempt to commit rape.
Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 602 Supreme Court of India The Court used this case to explain that an attempt is an act or series of acts that lead inevitably to the commission of the offense, unless prevented by unforeseen circumstances. It was also noted that an attempt is a part execution of a criminal design, falling short of actual consummation.
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code Indian Penal Code The Court analyzed this provision to explain that it deals with attempts to commit offenses, and it makes such attempts punishable.
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code Indian Penal Code The Court discussed the definition of ‘rape’ as it stood at the time of the incident, which included sexual intercourse with a woman under sixteen years of age with or without her consent and mere penetration was sufficient to prove such offense.

Judgment

Submission by Parties How it was treated by the Court
The State argued that there was an attempt to commit rape. The Court agreed with the State’s argument and held that the actions of the respondent went beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempt to commit rape.
The Respondent argued that there was only preparation to commit rape. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument, stating that the actions of the respondent were a direct step towards committing the offense and thus constituted an attempt.
Authority How it was viewed by the Court
Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379 The Court used the principles laid down in this case to distinguish between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’, emphasizing that an attempt begins when preparations are complete and an act towards the commission of the offense is initiated.
Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1997) 7 SCC 677 The Court referred to this case to highlight that the degree of the act is decisive in differentiating between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’ and that the actions of the accused in this case were akin to an attempt to commit rape.
Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 602 The Court relied on this case to explain that an attempt is an act or series of acts that lead inevitably to the commission of the offense unless prevented by unforeseen circumstances.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies NEET Reservation for Tamil Nadu in Medical Admissions (22 March 2022)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

  • The actions of the accused went beyond mere preparation: The court emphasized that the respondent’s actions of luring the girls, taking them to a secluded place, closing the doors, undressing them, and rubbing his genitals against theirs were deliberate steps towards committing the offense.
  • The testimony of the victims was credible: The court found the testimonies of the minor victims to be consistent, credible, and free from any signs of tutoring.
  • The need to protect children: The court was mindful of the need to protect children from sexual abuse and to ensure that offenders are appropriately punished.
Sentiment Percentage
Actions beyond preparation 40%
Credibility of victims 35%
Need to protect children 25%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The court carefully examined the sequence of events and the actions of the accused, and it also considered the relevant legal provisions and precedents. The court’s decision was driven by a desire to ensure that justice was served and that offenders are held accountable for their actions.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Was the offense an attempt to commit rape or mere preparation?
↓
Court’s Analysis: Actions of the accused (luring, taking inside, closing doors, undressing, rubbing genitals)
↓
Court’s Consideration: Actions went beyond mere preparation
↓
Court’s Conclusion: Actions constituted an ‘attempt to commit rape’.

Key Takeaways

  • Distinction between Preparation and Attempt: The judgment clarifies the distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’ in the context of sexual offenses. Actions that go beyond planning and are a direct step towards committing the offense are considered an attempt.
  • Protection of Minors: The judgment underscores the importance of protecting minors from sexual abuse and ensuring that offenders are held accountable.
  • Credibility of Child Witnesses: The court emphasized that the testimony of child witnesses should be given due consideration, especially when it is consistent and credible.
  • Application of Section 511: The judgment reiterates that Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code makes attempts to commit offenses punishable, even if the offense is not completed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to surrender within two weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. In case the respondent failed to surrender, the Police Authorities were directed to arrest him and send a compliance report.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that actions that go beyond mere preparation and are a direct step towards committing the offense of rape constitute an ‘attempt to commit rape’ under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles and clarifies the application of these principles in cases involving sexual offenses against minors. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a clarification and reaffirmation of the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra Alias Golu clarifies the critical distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’ to commit rape. The Court held that the accused’s actions of luring the minor girls, taking them to a secluded place, undressing them, and rubbing his genitals against theirs constituted an ‘attempt to commit rape’ and not mere preparation. This judgment reaffirms the importance of protecting children from sexual abuse and ensures that offenders are held accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s conviction, directing the respondent to surrender and serve the remainder of his sentence.

Source: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra Alias Golu