Conviction under Section 376/511 IPC upheld where the victim’s testimony was corroborated by prosecution witnesses.

The informant, Sabita Devi, alleged that on the night of 13 May 2017, while she was sleeping, the appellant entered her house, shut her mouth, and attempted to establish a physical relationship with her.

On her raising an alarm, her family members and villagers arrived, apprehended the appellant, and handed him over to the police.

On the basis of her fardbeyan, Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2017 was registered under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet, cognizance was taken, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, where charge under Sections 376/511 IPC was framed.

The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the informant, supporting eyewitnesses, and the investigating officer; one witness turned hostile.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376/511 IPC.

During the appeal, the State informed the High Court that the appellant had completed his custodial sentence on 14 October 2020, undergone an additional 15 days for non-payment of fine, and had been released on 29 October 2020.

Consequently, the appeal survived only against the conviction.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant attempted to commit rape, attracting Sections 376/511 IPC.

Whether the trial court’s appreciation of evidence disclosed any perversity or illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

Whether any effective relief concerning the sentence remained after the appellant had completed his sentence and been released.

The Court applied Sections 376 and 511 IPC, which together punish an attempt to commit rape where the accused, with the requisite intention, performs acts toward commission of the offence but the offence is not completed.

The prosecution was required to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through admissible and reliable evidence.

In appellate review, interference with a criminal conviction is warranted where the trial court’s appreciation of evidence is perverse, illegal, or otherwise unsustainable; mere disagreement without such infirmity does not justify interference.

The Court also recognised that, once the appellant had completed his sentence and been released, the appeal effectively remained confined to examination of the conviction.

The Court relied principally on the testimony of the informant, who supported the allegation in her examination-in-chief and stated that the appellant had attempted to rape her, as well as the corroborative evidence of two other prosecution witnesses.

Although one witness turned hostile, the Court held that this did not undermine the prosecution case because the informant and the supporting witnesses consistently affirmed the occurrence.

The investigating officer’s evidence established the investigation, recording of statements, inspection of the place of occurrence, and submission of the charge-sheet.

On this evidentiary basis, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s reasoning warranting appellate interference.

Since the appellant had already completed his sentence and been released, the appeal survived only against the conviction.

The Court upheld the judgment of conviction dated 26 May 2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 595 of 2017, and disposed of the appeal.