Kerala HC Upholds Conviction Of Man Who Broke Into Neighbour’s Home At 2 AM And Attempted Rape, Cuts Attempted-Rape Sentence To 5 Years

The appellant challenged his conviction by the Fast Track Special Court, Kottarakkara, for offences under Sections 458, 354 and 324, and Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC; he had been acquitted of the charge under Section 342.

The prosecution case was that, at about 2:00 a.m. on 10 September 2020, the appellant entered the victim’s home at night, lay on her and caught her face. When she cried out, he bit her cheek; her sons intervened, and the appellant fled.

The victim identified him as a neighbour, and her son testified that he saw the appellant in the house and saw him run towards the kitchen.

The trial court imposed concurrent sentences, including seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for attempted rape.

Section 511 IPC punishes an attempt where, with intent to commit an offence and after preparation, the accused does an act towards its commission; the act must go beyond mere preparation, but need not be the final act.

Section 458 IPC requires house-trespass or house-breaking by night, together with preparation for causing hurt, assaulting, wrongfully restraining, or putting a person in fear of such conduct.

The court set out that Section 324 requires voluntarily causing hurt by one of the means specified in that section, and that Section 354 requires assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

The Public Prosecutor cited Chandran v. State of Kerala, which discussed conviction for a lesser offence under Section 222 CrPC where a more serious charge is not proved; that authority was advanced in support of the Section 354 conviction.

The court accepted the victim’s account, supported by her son’s testimony that he saw the appellant in the house and fleeing, as well as evidence of the victim’s cheek injury and the broken kitchen door.

It held that the appellant’s entry at night, lying on the victim and catching her face demonstrated intent and conduct beyond preparation to commit rape; the sons’ intervention prevented completion.

Having set out the elements of Sections 458, 324 and 354, the court concluded that the prosecution had proved those offences as well, and found no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings.

It nevertheless considered a reduction appropriate for the attempted-rape sentence.

It partly allowed the appeal by reducing the substantive sentence for the attempted-rape offence from seven to five years’ rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the ₹15,000 fine and modifying the default sentence to two months’ rigorous imprisonment; the other sentences were confirmed and were to run concurrently.

The suspension of sentence and bail were cancelled, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the modified sentence.