The Rajasthan High Court recently provided relief to a man convicted in a sexual offense case from 1991, noting that his actions of removing the six-year-old victim’s innerwear and undressing himself did not constitute an attempt to rape [Suwalal vs State of Rajasthan].
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand amended Suwalal’s conviction from attempted rape to one under Section 354 (assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to the time he had already served.
“After reviewing the entire statements of the prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2), it is evident that the appellant did not attempt any of the acts defined under Section 375 IPC. However, although the appellant was accused of removing the prosecutrix ‘D’s innerwear and undressing himself, such actions do not constitute an offense under Section 376/511 IPC,” the Court stated.
Suwalal, who was 25 years old at the time of the offense, had spent approximately 2 and a half months in jail in 1991, both before and after his conviction.
Considering the considerable time that had passed since the incident and its impact on the individual, the Court deemed it inappropriate to send him back to jail.
The decision was made in response to an appeal filed by Suwalal in 1991 against the verdict of the Tonk Sessions Court, where he had been sentenced to three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment.
The case dates back to March 9, 1991, when the complainant alleged that his six-year-old granddaughter was taken away by the accused with the intention to rape her. However, when the girl cried out for help, villagers intervened, and the accused fled the scene.
While Suwalal’s counsel argued that there was no allegation of attempted rape, the State contended that the victim’s testimony indicated otherwise, stating that “he took-off the inner-wear of the prosecutrix and undressed himself as well” before she raised the alarm.
The Court noted that the entire prosecution case relied on the testimony of the victim, as there were no cross-examination questions posed to her.
Based on this testimony, the Court analyzed whether the actions constituted an attempted rape. It emphasized that to prove such an offense, it must be shown that the accused had progressed beyond the preparation stage and displayed a determination to commit the act.
Referring to previous judgments, the Court concluded that while the actions did not amount to an attempted rape, they did constitute an assault on the victim with the intent to outrage her modesty, falling under Section 354 IPC.
Advocate Anzum Parveen represented the convict, while Public Prosecutor Suresh Kumar represented the State.
