Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Rape and Outraging Modesty: Chaitu Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand (20 November 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1122

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a person be convicted for attempting to commit rape even if they did not complete the act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the scope of what constitutes an ‘attempt’ under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment examines the fine line between preparation and attempt in cases of sexual assault. The bench comprised of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on January 12, 1991, involving the accused, Chaitu Lal, and his aunt (the complainant-victim). The complainant alleged that Chaitu Lal had previously engaged in indecent behavior towards her. On the day of the incident, Chaitu Lal, after seeing the complainant alone, attempted to molest her. Later that night, around 10:00 PM, while the complainant was sleeping with her daughters, Chaitu Lal, in a drunken state, entered her house. He pounced on her, causing her to fall on the bed, lifted her petticoat, sat on her, and attempted to rape her. Her daughter (P.W.2) intervened, and upon hearing the commotion, other villagers arrived. Chaitu Lal then fled, threatening the complainant. The complainant reported the incident to her husband, and they filed a complaint on January 16, 1991.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Chaitu Lal under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed Chaitu Lal’s appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, Chaitu Lal appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The provision states:
  “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of rape.
• Section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the punishment for attempting to commit offenses punishable with imprisonment. 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.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Chaitu Lal):

• The accused-appellant argued that he was falsely implicated by the complainant due to existing animosity.
• He contended that there was a delay of three days in registering the First Information Report (FIR), which the prosecution failed to explain.
• The appellant submitted that the evidence presented did not establish liability for an offense under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arguing that he did not perform any overt act such as attempting to undress himself.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Uttarakhand):

• The State supported the concurrent judgments of conviction passed against the accused-appellant by the lower courts.
• The State argued that the evidence of the complainant-victim was corroborated by the testimony of her daughter (P.W.2), her husband (P.W.3), and an independent witness (P.W.4).
• The State contended that the actions of the accused, including forcibly entering the house, pouncing on the complainant, and lifting her petticoat, were sufficient to establish an attempt to commit rape.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the actions of the accused constitute an offense under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (outraging modesty).
2. Whether the actions of the accused constitute an offense under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to commit rape).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Aman Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379* to establish the intent required for an attempt to commit rape, noting that the accused must intend to commit the act despite any resistance.
• The Court distinguished Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560*, stating that in the present case, the accused had gone beyond the stage of preparation and had commenced the act of committing the offense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible testimony of the complainant and corroborating witnesses. The Court emphasized that the accused’s actions clearly indicated an intent to commit rape, and that he had gone beyond the stage of mere preparation. The fact that the accused forcibly entered the complainant’s house, pounced on her, and lifted her petticoat, despite her resistance, were key factors in the Court’s reasoning.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the accused’s actions, including forcibly entering the house, pouncing on the complainant, and lifting her petticoat, clearly demonstrated an intent to commit rape. The Court emphasized that the attempt to commit an offense begins when the accused commences an act with the necessary intention. The Court also distinguished the case from *Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560*, noting that the accused in that case had not gone beyond the stage of preparation.

The Court stated, “The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention.” The Court further noted, “Herein, although the complainant-victim and her daughter were pleading with the accused to let the complainant-victim go, the accused-appellant did not show any reluctance that he was going to stop from committing the aforesaid offence. Therefore, had there been no intervention, the accused-appellant would have succeeded in executing his criminal design.” Additionally, the Court observed, “The conduct of the accused in the present case is indicative of his definite intention to commit the said offence.”

Key Takeaways

• An attempt to commit an offense under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires the accused to have gone beyond the stage of preparation and to have commenced an act with the necessary intention.
• The intention to commit an offense can be inferred from the conduct of the accused, including their actions and statements.
• The testimony of the complainant, if found credible, can be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, especially when corroborated by other witnesses.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the established legal position that an attempt to commit an offense under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires more than mere preparation; it requires an overt act towards the commission of the offense with the necessary intent. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the actions of the accused in forcibly entering the house, pouncing on the complainant, and lifting her petticoat, despite her resistance, constituted an attempt to commit rape under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Chaitu Lal for offenses under Section 354 and Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the accused’s actions clearly demonstrated an intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant and to commit rape. The judgment clarifies the distinction between preparation and attempt in the context of sexual offenses and emphasizes the importance of credible witness testimony in establishing guilt.