Credible prosecutrix testimony sustains a Section 354 IPC conviction despite failure to prove attempted rape.

On 9 March 1998, Champa Devi alleged that the appellant caught both her hands while she was cleaning fish outside her house and forcibly dragged her towards a garlic field with the intention of committing rape. She raised an alarm, resisted, and bit the appellant, who then released her and fled. Her younger sister allegedly witnessed the occurrence, while her mother and father learnt of it immediately thereafter.

A written report was lodged on 11 March 1998, resulting in registration of Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 7 of 1998 initially under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

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

During trial, five prosecution witnesses were examined. The prosecutrix and her younger sister supported the prosecution; her mother and father corroborated the immediate aftermath, while the independent witness, Vakil Kahar, turned hostile.

The trial court acquitted or did not convict the appellant under Sections 376/511 IPC but convicted him under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an assault or used criminal force against the prosecutrix with the intention of outraging her modesty, thereby attracting Section 354 IPC?

Whether the hostile testimony of the alleged eyewitness and the failure to prove the intended offence under Sections 376/511 IPC warranted interference with the conviction under Section 354 IPC?

Whether, having regard to the age of the appellant, the age of the occurrence, and the period already undergone, the sentence required modification?

The Court applied Section 354 IPC, which criminalises assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage, or knowledge that the act is likely to outrage, her modesty.

The Court distinguished the ingredients of Sections 376/511 IPC, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish the attempted rape charge beyond reasonable doubt, although the evidence proved the lesser offence under Section 354 IPC.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that the credible testimony of the prosecutrix may form the basis of conviction when it inspires confidence and is materially corroborated by surrounding evidence; the hostility of one witness does not necessarily destroy the prosecution case.

The appellant’s denial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was considered, but no defence evidence was adduced.

The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony reliable and consistent: she described the appellant’s physical restraint, forcible dragging, resistance, and escape after she raised an alarm.

Her account was substantially corroborated by her younger sister and by her mother and father regarding the immediate disclosure and aftermath of the incident.

Although Vakil Kahar turned hostile, his evidence was not indispensable because the prosecutrix’s credible testimony, supported by the other witnesses, established the appellant’s assault and use of criminal force.

However, the evidence did not establish the necessary elements of attempted rape under Sections 376/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt; consequently, the conviction was correctly confined to Section 354 IPC.

For sentencing, the Court considered that the occurrence was approximately 28 years old, the appellant was over 60 years of age, there had been no subsequent complaint against him, and the record showed that he had surrendered and obtained bail on 16 April 1999.

The High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 354 IPC, finding the prosecution evidence sufficient to prove assault and use of criminal force intended to outrage the prosecutrix’s modesty, while accepting that the offence under Sections 376/511 IPC had not been proved.

Considering the age of the case and the appellant’s advanced age, the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment was modified and reduced to the period already undergone.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.