Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv) Further submitted that upon considering the cumulative effect of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and if they are properly analyzed then it negates the prosecution case. Therefore, the Special Court has not appreciated the evidences on record properly. Further alternatively submitted that even though this court holds that the appellant/accused has committed the offences as alleged but it is not attempt to commit rape but at the most the offence attracts in the present case against the appellant is that, the appellant/accused has committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the victim. Therefore, submitted even if it is held that the appellant/accused is guilty of the offences as alleged outraging the modesty of woman attracting the offence under Section 354 of IPC but certainly not the offence under Sections 376 r/w 511 of IPC. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Bombay High Court, which would be discussed in succeeding paragraphs.

11. Contentions of learned High Court Government Pleader:

Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the prosecution has placed reliable and cogent evidences before the Trial Court to prove the guilt of the appellant and the said court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to conclusion that the appellant has committed offence as alleged. Therefore, submitted that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Further submitted that even though there may be omissions are revealed, but in every case the contradictions and omissions are revealed as usual the same is happened in the present case but which do not affect core of the prosecution case. Therefore, whatever there may be are trivial in nature and that can be ignored. Further submitted that the cumulative effect of the evidences as produced by the prosecution goes to prove that the appellant has committed the offence alleged and has rightly convicted the appellant. Further submitted that the finding of the Special Court that the appellant has committed offence of attempting to commit rape and thus it is rightly held that the appellant has committed the offence of attempt to commit rape even though the Special Court had not recorded the conviction under Section 376/511 of IPC but recording of conviction under Section 18 of the POCSO Act is correct, legal and justifiable and there is no need to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Further submitted that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offence of attempting to commit rape and it is not just outraging the modesty of the victim and therefore it is proved that the appellant has committed offence of higher degree. Therefore, prays not to modify the conviction and sentence to a lower degree. Therefore, for these reasons and submission the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the appeal.

33. Therefore, upon considering all the evidences on record as it is observed above, except admitting the minor contradictions and omissions as discussed above, the cumulative effect of the prosecution case as revealed from their evidences proved the fact that the appellant has induced P.W.1 and taken her to the land and tied the victim with by M.O.1 - Odni and attempted to commit the crime as alleged. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant that he had taken P.W.1-Victim on motorcycle by falsely stating that her father had suffered snake bite and saying her that he would leave the victim to her house and thus in this way induced P.W.1 and had made her to sit on the motorcycle but instead of going to her house, had taken her to the land and therein the appellant had tied hands and legs of P.W.1 with an intention to commit the offence of rape as against her and PW.-1 screamed and at that point of time the appellant was interrupted by P.W.7-Siddappa and when he came to the place of incident upon hearing the scream of the P.W.1 the appellant ran away thus, whether this act constitutes offence of attempting to commit rape punishable under Sections 376/511 of IPC or offence of outraging modesty of a woman punishable as per Section 354 of IPC or whether it is amounting offence committed by the appellant under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Whether the appellant has committed these offences is to be gathered from the finding given as above stated. The learned counsel for the appellant had stated that from the finding and reached conclusion as above stated is not amounting to the offence of attempting to commit rape attracting offence under Section 376/511 of IPC and also the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, therefore submitted at the most as against this appellant, the only offence of outraging modesty of the woman is attracted punishable under section 354 of IPC.

229. Therefore, by placing reliance on this judgment, the learned counsel submitted that in the present case at the most the act of the appellant proved to be outraging the modesty of P.W.1 but certainly not the offence of attempt to commit rape.

35. The facts in the above cited case are that; the victim was 12 yeas old and had gone to the Jangal to graze buffalos and the respondent therein had approached the victim and lured the victim and taken the victim to his house and there was nobody in the house and had taken the victim in the house and closed the door inside, forcibly undressed the victim and made her to lie on the ground and was about to lay down on her at that time upon hearing scream of the victim cried upon which the respondent had put some cloth in her mouth and hearing her cry one Bihari Saini, who was passing nearby reached there and witnessed the whole incident and another person had also come to the spot and then the respondent fled away from the place of incident. Under these factual matrix, the Hon'ble Apex Court while placing reliance on the earlier judgments of Apex Court had held that the act of the respondent is amounting to outraging the modesty of a woman but not the offence attracting attempt to commit rape. The learned Sessions Judge therein had found the accused guilty under Section 354 of IPC and went on granting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge therein recording the respondent-accused was guilty of the offence under Section 354 of IPC is confirmed but granting of benefit of Probation under the Probation of Offenders Act is set aside.