Appeal Results in Reduced Sentence for Attempt to Rape and Sexual Assault. Court modifies conviction, reducing rigorous imprisonment from 10 years to 5 years, following a re-evaluation of evidence and legal precedents.

Case Note & Summary

The accused challenges the judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, which sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the offense under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC. The appeal scrutinizes the conviction and the evidence, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal. The court finds the evidence insufficient for the conviction under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(m)(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act. Instead, it convicts the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 7 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.

1. Introduction Case Details: Appeal against judgment dated 13.02.2020 by Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia. Original Conviction: 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 30,000 fine under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC; convicted under Section 5(m)(n) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act without separate sentence. 2. Background Facts Victim: A 10-year-old girl. Incident: On 23.05.2015, the victim was allegedly assaulted by the accused in a cattle shed during a marriage procession. Immediate Action: Victim’s mother reported the incident promptly, leading to the registration of Crime No. 31/2015. 3. Investigation and Trial Investigation: Conducted by API J.M. Nayade; medical examination of the victim. Charges: Framed under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Prosecution Evidence: Ten witnesses, including the victim and her mother. 4. Arguments by the Appellant Contention: Evidence does not support the conviction for rape or penetrative sexual assault. Alternative Offense: Argues that the evidence supports only an attempt to rape (Section 376 r/w Section 511 IPC) and sexual assault (Section 7 of the POCSO Act). 5. Arguments by the Prosecution and Respondent Prosecution Stand: Evidence, especially medical, proves the charge beyond doubt. Victim's Counsel: Supports the prosecution, emphasizing the credibility of the witnesses and lack of motive for false implication. 6. Court’s Analysis of Evidence Victim’s Testimony: Describes the assault but does not confirm penetration. Medical Evidence: No major injuries or penetration; swelling suggests an attempt of sexual assault. Conclusion: Evidence supports an attempt to commit rape but not actual rape. 7. Legal Precedents Reference Case: Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1998 SC 386) – Establishes that attempt beyond preparation, without penetration, constitutes attempt to rape. 8. Court’s Findings and Conclusion Offense Established: Attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC; sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Conviction Adjusted: Set aside original conviction under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC and Sections 5(m)(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act. New Sentence: 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. 9. Sentence Appellant’s Imprisonment: Already served 4 years and 9 months. Final Sentence: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine and default sentence. 10. Disposition Appeal Outcome: Partly allowed; original conviction modified; new sentence imposed.