Lying On Woman & Pressing Her Mouth Without Any Act Towards Penetration Is Not Attempted Rape: Patna HC Sets Aside Conviction After 13 Years
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskPATNA: The Patna High Court has set aside a man's conviction for attempted rape under Sections 376/511 IPC, holding that lying upon a woman and pressing her mouth, without any act towards penetration, does not automatically amount to attempted rape.
Justice Sandeep Kumar partly allowed the man's criminal appeal against his 2013 conviction and four-year prison sentence awarded by the Trial Court in Begusarai.
The case arose from an incident on February 8, 2010, when a woman alleged that the accused entered her house at around 10 PM, extinguished a lamp, lay upon her and pressed her mouth. She raised an alarm, following which villagers allegedly gathered and caught him.
Read Also:- Men’s Rights Truth: Sympathy Destroys Innocent Men Trapped in False 498A and Rape Cases
On July 29, 2013, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 376/511 and 448 IPC, sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment for attempted rape and six months for house-trespass.
Challenging the conviction, the man argued that the prosecution evidence contained contradictions and lacked independent support. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that her clothes were not torn, there were no injury marks, and she had not undergone any medical examination.
The defence further highlighted that two prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, while neither the Investigating Officer nor any medical witness was examined.
However, the High Court found the complainant's testimony reliable regarding the accused's entry into her house and his physical conduct, which was also supported by a neighbour's testimony.
The central question was whether the accused's conduct legally amounted to attempted rape or a lesser offence.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, the High Court observed:
"In the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Kumar (supra), indecent assaults are often magnified into attempts at rape, and materials must exist to show a determination to gratify passion at all events and in spite of all resistance."
The Court clarified that mere preparation and an actual attempt to commit rape are legally different. An attempted rape conviction requires evidence of conduct going beyond preparation towards committing the offence.
The Bench observed:
“All the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. are, therefore, established. However, in the absence of any evidence that the appellant undressed himself or the prosecutrix, or did any act towards penetration, it cannot be held that he had gone beyond the stage of preparation...”
Accordingly, the High Court overturned the conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC but held the man guilty under Section 354 IPC for outraging a woman's modesty, applying the provision as it stood before the 2013 amendment.
The Court also upheld his conviction for house-trespass under Section 448 IPC.
Read Also:- Successs Story- Anticipatory Bail on Rape Allegations
Given that the incident occurred more than 16 years ago, the man had no prior criminal record, and he had remained on bail for over 13 years without any adverse report, the High Court reduced his imprisonment to the period already undergone.
The Court also imposed a ₹25,000 fine under Section 354 IPC, directing that the amount be paid to the complainant as compensation.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Provision | What It Means | Application in This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape. | Attempted rape conviction set aside. |
| Section 511 IPC | Punishment for attempting to commit an offence. | No sufficient act towards committing rape was proved. |
| Section 354 IPC | Assault or criminal force intended or likely to outrage a woman's modesty. | Accused convicted under the provision applicable in 2010. |
| Sections 441, 442 and 448 IPC | Criminal trespass, house-trespass and its punishment. | House-trespass conviction upheld. |
| Sections 323 and 504 IPC | Voluntarily causing hurt and intentional insult provoking breach of peace. | Included in the initial investigation and charge-sheet. |
| Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate's power to direct police investigation. | Complaint forwarded to police. |
| Section 313 CrPC | Accused's opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances. | Appellant denied the allegations. |
| Section 222(2) CrPC | Permits conviction for a lesser offence established by the facts. | Allowed conviction under Section 354 IPC. |
| Sections 386 and 464 CrPC | Appellate powers and the effect of errors or omissions in charges. | Supported alteration of the conviction without prejudice to the accused. |
| Section 357 CrPC | Compensation payable to victims. | ₹25,000 fine directed to be paid to the complainant. |
| Article 20(1), Constitution | Protects against retrospective imposition of harsher criminal punishment. | The pre-2013 punishment under Section 354 IPC applied. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | X v. The State of Bihar |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Bench | Justice Sandeep Kumar |
| Judgment Date | October 8, 2026 |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 579 of 2013 |
| CNR Number | BRHC010664732013 |
| Original Police Case | Ballia P.S. Case No. 33 of 2010 |
| Complaint Case | No. 257C of 2010 |
| Trial Court Case | Sessions Trial No. 1052 of 2010 |
| Appellant's Counsel | Mr Parithosh Parimal and Md. Fahimuddin, Advocates |
| State's Counsel | Ms Anita Kumari Singh, APP |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- 13 Years Fighting an Attempted Rape Conviction: A man spent over a decade challenging a serious criminal conviction.
- 4-Year Prison Sentence Overturned: Patna High Court set aside the attempted rape conviction after 13 years of litigation.
- No Act Towards Penetration: Despite the serious charge, the prosecution failed to establish an attempt to commit rape.
- Serious Allegation, Lesser Offences Proved: The Court rejected attempted rape but upheld convictions under Sections 354 and 448 IPC.
- 16 Years of Criminal Proceedings: An incident from 2010 led to years of litigation, raising serious questions about the human cost of prolonged criminal trials
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.