SC Explains Distinction Between Preparation And Attempt To Rape

Key Takeaways

• The name of the case is State of Madhya Pradesh V. Mahendra Alias Golu.
• The Bench that gave its judgement consisted of Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.
• The court gave the decision while dealing with the stance of a man accused of rape and gave a distinction between “preparation” and “attempt to rape.”
• This case is dated in the year 2005 before the POSCO Act and Criminal Amendment Act were introduced.

Background

• The accused was said to have attempted to rape a minor girl under Section 376(2)(f) r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Court.
• An appeal was filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Where the court altered the stance under Section 354 of the IPC and also decreased the punishment granted to the accused.
• The High Court believed that the accused did not do anything that amounts to an “attempt of rape” and did not go beyond preparation. It only violated the modesty of the victim.
• The High court after taking into account the evidence concluded that the intention of both the parties was to engage themselves in sexual intercourse.

Courts Order

• The Court set aside the judgement of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as it ignored the material evidence while giving its decision. The judgement of the Trial Court was reimposed.
• The accused was ordered to surrender within 2 weeks and serve the remaining time of punishment granted by the Trial Court.
• If the accused failed to surrender within the time, the police authority was ordered to arrest him and send a compliance report

Courts Observation

• The court found in the evidence that the minor girl was taken by the accused inside a closed room. Then the accused removed his clothes and the victims’ clothes and rubbed his genitals against the victim.
• The court also observed that the testimony given by the victim prove her innocence and was not made under any pressure, influence or teaching.
• The Bench also stated that these acts were done beyond the stage of preparation and the intention behind such an act was an attempt to rape.
• The Bench also upheld the decision of the Trial Court to punish the accused under Section 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Bench made a clear distinction between “Preparation” and “Attempt to Rape” as follows:

1. Deliberation, arranging of means or devising of materials which would offend are the ingredients of “Preparation.” Attempt begins where preparation stops and that there is a visible distinction between preparation and attempt.
2. In Criminal Jurisprudence it is clear that every offence has three stages. First, the intention; secondly, the preparation and thirdly, attempt to commit the crime. If the third stage is fulfilled it is deemed that the crime has been committed.
3. If the ingredients of a crime do not limit to the stage of preparation, the act is considered to be an “attempt” and is punishable under Section 511 of the IPC. If an action causes interference of the likelihood of the offence the accused can be held guilty.
4. Section 511 of the IPC deals with the attempt to commit crimes and states that among other things if the crime is committed then the accused is liable to be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment under the Code. (Para14)
5. “Attempt” constitutes a mixed question of law and fact. It takes place when the accused fails to commit the principal offence. It is a direct move to commit the crime after the stage of preparation is over. (Para 20)

Questions
1) When a victim’s modesty is outraged, isn’t that enough ground for an “attempt to rape?”
2) What are the changes brought by the POSCO Act and the Criminal Amendment Act?

Let us know your views on the issue in the comment section below!