Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 Crl. L.J. 1430, the Court held that where apparels worn by the victim were torn, the offence will fall under Section 354 IPC.

15. In the case of Hari Mohapatra and another v. State of Orissa and others, 1996 Crl. L.J. 2952, the accused entered into room, closed the door, molested the victim by squeezing her breast and also tried to open her pant, on these facts it was held that offence will fall under Section 354 IPC.

16. In view of the above legal proposition, if we examine the facts of the instant case, we find that the crime committed by the accused-appellant was at the initial stage of preparation. The offence committed would not fall within the mischief of section 376/511 IPC. The factual aspect of this case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Tarkeshwar Sahu (supra) and ratio given in para-22 of the judgment clearly prove that the accused-appellant in the instant case was also liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 354/366 IPC, because not only he has outraged her modesty, but he has also taken out her from lawful guardianship of PW-1, to his room. In the case of Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra 1997 SCC (Cri) 840, the Apex Court has observed:

"Where the Courts had given cogent and convincing reasons for recording their finding that the accused had kidnapped the victim girl with intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse, conviction of accused under S. 366 was not interfered with."

In similar conditions, the Apex Court in the above noted case (Tarkeshwar Sahu) has convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 366 IPC as well.

17. The accused is in jail since 7.11.2010. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the ends of justice would be met if the accused-appellant is sentenced to two years' R.I. U/s 354 IPC and five years' R.I. U/s 366 IPC.

18. In view of what has been said and done above, lead us to this irresistible conclusion that the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence punishable u/s 376/511 IPC is unsustainable and the appeal partly succeeds. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 376/511 IPC are set aside. However, he is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 354 and 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. and five years' R.I. respectively. It is directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. The appellant is in jail. He would serve out the remainder sentence, if after giving benefit of admissible remission he has not completely undergone the substantial sentence.