The Allahabad High Court recently held that undressing a woman in a bid to rape her amounts to the offence of attempt to rape under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Pradeep Kumar v State]..In the present case, one Pradeep Kumar in 2004 had forcibly abducted the victim and kept her confined in a house for nearly 20 days. Later, he had attempted to rape her by undressing her.He was later convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. A Justice Rajnish Kumar upheld the decision..The prosecution alleged that the accused forcibly took the victim in a Maruti van, confined her in a relative’s house for about 20 days and during that time, undressed her and attempted to sexually assault her. However, he failed to commit the offence of rape due to her resistance.The Court noted that it was proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with the intention of raping her. "He with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged the modesty of the victim but also attempted rape by undressing her. However, he could not commit intercourse on account of her protest. The victim has stated that the appellant had done bad work with her. The victim reiterated and supported the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate in her evidence during trial also," the Court observed..The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments in which it was held that the removal of the victim's clothes by the accused constitutes an attempt to rape.It also dismissed the appellant’s contention that the delay in filing the complaint weakened the prosecution’s case, noting that the delay had been adequately explained.It further rejected the argument that the accused was falsely implicated due to enmity, stating that the appellant had failed to substantiate this claim."The appellant also tried to establish prior relationship with the victim by producing certain letters, which have been denied to be written by the victim by her in evidence and no cogent material could be placed on record to prove the same. The delay in lodging the FIR has properly been explained in the FIR itself and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the delay is immaterial in such cases, particularly when the prosecution has proved its case. The plea of implication of the applicant on the ground of enmity could not be proved by the appellant and no evidence could be adduced to prove any enmity," the Court noted while dismissing the plea.Advocate Ashutosh Singh and BS Patel appeared for the appellant.Additional Government Advocate Badrul Hasan appeared for the State..[Read Order]
