Case Summary: Attempted Rape Conviction Upheld by High Court of Uttrakhand

In a significant judgment by the High Court of Uttrakhand, the conviction in an attempted rape case was upheld. The case involved the accused-appellant who was convicted under Sections 354 and 511 read with Section 376 IPC. The appeal against the High Court’s decision was dismissed, affirming the sentences imposed on the accused. The judgment reiterates the court’s commitment to justice and protection of victims’ rights in cases of heinous crimes.


  • The High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital confirmed the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli against the accused.
  • The accused was convicted for offences under Section 354 and Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC.
  • The sentences imposed on the accused were rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 354 IPC and two years under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 200.
  • The accused appealed against the High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction.
  • The accused-appellant, disregarding the pleas of the complainant-victim and the fact that she was his aunt, forcibly lifted her petticoat and attempted to commit rape.
  • The accused-appellant was convicted for offences under Section 354 and Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC, leading to imprisonment and a fine.
  • He later entered the house of the complainant-victim in a drunken state when her husband was absent.
  • The complainant-victim disclosed the incident to her husband, following which they filed a complaint with the Court of the CJM.
  • The daughter of the complainant-victim intervened when she heard the commotion, pleading with the accused-appellant to release her mother.
  • The complainant-victim stated that the accused-appellant had attempted to molest her on multiple occasions.

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • The counsel on behalf of the accused-appellant argued that the accused has been framed by the complainant-victim due to existing enmity.
  • The submission made suggests that there might have been ulterior motives behind the accusation.
  • The argument implies that the complainant-victim may have falsely implicated the accused-appellant in the case.
  • The FIR was registered with a delay of 3 days with no explanation provided by the prosecution.
  • Witness testimonies do not indicate any liability for the offence charged.
  • The complainant-victim’s statement (P.W.1) is supported by the daughter (P.W.2), husband (P.W.3), and independent witness Sohan Lal (P.W.4).

Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF


  • Independent witness Sohan Lal (P.W.4) corroborates events of the date of occurrence by hearing noise and seeing accused-appellant’s wife holding the complainant-victim’s neck.
  • Accused-appellant did not show reluctance in his actions despite pleas from complainant-victim and daughter.
  • Delay in registering the FIR does not adversely affect the prosecution’s case.
  • Accused forcibly entered the house in a drunken state, used criminal force despite resistance.
  • Accused-appellant attempted to molest the complainant-victim earlier on the same day.
  • Accused-appellant’s actions demonstrate intent to outrage modesty of the victim.
  • Evidence indicates accused’s definite intention to commit the offence.
  • Accused failed at the stage of preparation of commission of the offence in a previous case cited.
  • Witness statements remained consistent and credible, with no material contradictions.
  • Intervention from villagers and threat of dire consequences led accused-appellant to flee the scene.
  • Accused’s actions are deemed sufficient to prove his culpability.
  • The counsel of the accused-appellant argued that the actions of the accused did not constitute the offense under Section 511 read with Section 376 as there was no overt act such as an attempt to undress in order to commit the alleged act.
  • Referring to the case of Aman Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana, the court stated that in order to find an accused guilty of an attempt with intent to commit rape, certain overt acts need to be present.
  • The absence of specific actions such as attempting to undress oneself in this case may be a crucial factor in determining the intent and guilt of the accused-appellant.
  • The interpretation of the law regarding attempts with intent to commit rape requires a careful analysis of the actions and intentions of the accused.
  • Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.
  • Guilt of the accused-appellant established beyond doubt based on facts and circumstances.

Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration


  • The appeal was considered and found to lack merit.
  • Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002127-002127 / 2009

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *