Karnataka High Court orders CID probe after police ignored alleged attempted rape and filed only attempt-to-murder charges despite framing of charges

The petitioner, the alleged victim, and the accused, her colleague, attended an office party on 20 August 2022. Thereafter, the accused allegedly took her in his car to an isolated place, made sexual advances, attempted to have sexual intercourse with her against her will, and repeatedly stabbed, bit, burned and assaulted her. She escaped and was admitted to Manipal Hospital in a critical condition

The police registered Crime No.122/2022 only under Section 307 IPC and filed a charge-sheet exclusively for attempt to murder. The case was committed to the Sessions Court as S.C. No.11/2023, where charge was framed only under Section 307 IPC

The petitioner relied upon her statements, particularly her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., alleging attempted rape and several investigative lapses, including non-seizure or non-examination of the vehicle, absence of FSL material, failure to examine the cab driver and other witnesses, and non-collection of relevant medical, digital and forensic evidence

Although trial proceedings were stayed by an earlier order of the High Court, the police did not undertake further investigation

The petitioner therefore sought a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. for further investigation by an independent senior officer and submission of a supplementary charge-sheet.

The Court applied Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which permits further investigation and submission of a supplementary report, together with the constitutional and inherent powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure a fair investigation and fair trial

Section 511 IPC was applied as the general provision governing attempts to commit offences where no specific punishment for attempt is provided

Relying on Chaitu Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 20 SCC 272, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra, (2022) 12 SCC 442, Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379, Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1997) 7 SCC 677 and Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 602, the Court held that an attempt begins when preparation ends and the accused undertakes overt acts demonstrating a determined intention to commit the offence, notwithstanding the victim’s resistance

On further investigation, the Court relied on Anant Thakur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 5 SCC 802, Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (2023) 1 SCC 48, Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160, Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, holding that constitutional courts may direct further investigation, even after filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges, where necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice; however, such power must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases

The Court found that the victim’s Section 164 statement described repeated demands for sexual intercourse, forcible touching, attempts to remove clothing, pressing her face against the accused’s private parts, threats to kill her unless she submitted, continued physical violence and attempts to restrain her despite her resistance

Applying the law on attempt, the Court held that these allegations went beyond mere preparation and prima facie demonstrated a sustained and determined attempt to commit rape, interrupted by the victim’s resistance and escape rather than by voluntary abandonment by the accused

The police had nevertheless confined the case to Section 307 IPC and had failed to investigate the sexual allegations. The Court also identified substantial omissions concerning the accused’s clothing, the alleged knife and its covering, blood and biological material inside the vehicle, FSL examination, medical evidence, the cab driver, other witnesses, CCTV and GPS evidence

These omissions were considered material and capable of affecting the truth-finding process, not merely technical defects.

Since the right to a fair investigation forms part of Article 21 and the commencement of trial is not an absolute bar to constitutional intervention, the Court held that further investigation was necessary despite the filing of the charge-sheet and framing of the charge

To ensure independence and impartiality, the investigation was transferred from the original police machinery to the CID

The High Court directed the State to entrust further investigation in Crime No.122/2022/S.C. No.11/2023 to the Crime Investigation Department, which was required to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation and submit its report before the competent court within three months from entrustment. The State was directed to make the entrustment within fifteen days of receiving the order

The Sessions Court was directed not to proceed with the trial until submission of the CID report and thereafter to regulate the proceedings in accordance with law