Patna. The Patna High Court, in an important judgment, has clarified that lying on top of a woman and pressing her mouth, unless there is evidence of an overt act leading to sexual relations, is not sufficient to prove the offense of attempt to rape under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.
Read :- Supreme Court is strict on the exemption given to Election Commissioners from legal action, sought answers from Center and Election Commission
The court of Justice Sandeep Kumar, while partially accepting an appeal filed against his 2013 conviction, made it clear that the accused's act fell under outraging the modesty of a woman (Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code). The court has also modified the conviction by retaining the conviction for house intrusion under section 448.
What is the matter?
This incident took place on 8 February 2010 in Begusarai district of Bihar. According to the complaint, the appellant Mohd. Aniyul Haq entered the house of a widowed woman at around 10 pm while she was sleeping. The woman alleged that the accused pressed her mouth and sexually assaulted her. When the woman raised an alarm, villagers gathered, who caught hold of the accused and beat him up. After this the victim approached the court on 10 February 2010.
The Begusarai-based trial court had convicted the accused of the offenses of attempt to rape (Section 376/511) and house intrusion (Section 448) and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment and fine. Against which the petitioner had filed an appeal in the High Court.
Read:- 'Supreme' relief to Rahul Gandhi in defamation case, court stays action of lower court, what is the matter?
The High Court said in its decision that although it is proved that the accused entered the house and pressed the woman's mouth, there is no evidence that he took off his clothes or did any act towards sexual relations.
Citing the old decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court considered the action of the accused within the scope of outraging the modesty of a woman (Section 354 IPC). Considering the accused being around 60 years of age, the court has limited his main sentence to the period already served. However, in order to provide justice to the victim, a fine of Rs 25,000 has been imposed on him, which will be given directly to the victim as compensation.