Prepared by- Adv. Aakanksha Bhatia
Court: High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench
Judgment Date: 13.05.2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Facts:
In the case of Suwalal son of Gopi by caste Raigar v. State, the prosecutrix, a six year old girl child who was drinking water at the Pyau (Water Booth) near haramshala alleged that the appellant forcibly took her to the dharamshala, undressed her and removed her inner wear, while also undressing himself with the intention to commit rape on her. When the prosecutrix raised hue and cry, the villagers arrived and rescued her, otherwise the accused might have committed rape on her. The case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 20/1991 by which he has been convicted under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the attempt to commit rape.
Issue:
The primary legal issue was whether this act of the accused of taking the prosecutrix into the dharamshala, removing the prosecutrix’s inner wear and undressing himself constituted an attempt to commit rape under Section 376/511 IPC?
Judgment:
The High Court of Rajasthan ruled that the act of the accused did not amount to an attempt to commit rape. The court observed that while the accused’s behaviour was indecent and morally reprehensible, it did not fulfil the legal criteria for an attempt to rape but is liable under Section 354 that is assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The court emphasized that for an act to constitute an attempt, there must be a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparation is over. The court held that the act of the accused fell short of this threshold.
Legal Analysis:
- Interpretation of ‘Attempt’: Section 511 IPC prescribes punishment for attempt to commit offenses punishable with life imprisonment or other terms. The judiciary has historically interpreted ‘attempt’ to mean that the accused must have made a direct move towards committing the offense after all preparations are complete. The court’s narrow interpretation in Suwalal son of Gopi by caste Raigar v. State overlooked broader jurisprudential principles that recognize a spectrum of preparatory acts capable of constituting an attempt, especially in sexual offenses where the victim’s autonomy and security are paramount in nature.
- Judicial Precedents: The court failed to adequately consider precedents where the Supreme Court and the other High Courts have adopted a more expansive view of what constitutes an attempt to rape. In Koppula Venkata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), the Supreme Court held that any overt act that leads towards the commission of rape could be sufficient for an attempt. The act of undressing the prosecutrix and oneself, accompanied by intent, should logically fit within this framework. In the case of Chaitu Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India said that “The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention”.
- Impact on Victims: This judgment undermines the gravity of the victim’s ordeal by creating a higher threshold for what constitutes an attempt to rape. It sends a potentially dangerous message that a significant degree of sexual assault is required before legal protection under attempt provisions can be invoked. This not only diminishes the victim’s experience but also risks emboldening perpetrators by setting a concerning precedent.
- Legislative Intent: The legislative intent behind Section 376/511 IPC is to provide stringent punishment for attempts to commit rape, acknowledging the severe impact such attempts have on victims. The court’s interpretation in this case appears to dilute this intent, necessitating a re-evaluation to align with the legislative purpose and societal needs.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, the judgment in Suwalal son of Gopi by caste Raigar v. State by the High Court of Rajasthan presents a restrictive and arguably flawed interpretation of what constitutes an attempt to rape. By setting an unduly high threshold, the court has failed to protect the rights and dignity of sexual assault survivors adequately. This case highlights the need for a more victim-centric approach and a broader understanding of the preparatory acts leading to sexual offenses, ensuring that the justice system adequately addresses and deters such grave offenses. Future judgments and potential legislative clarifications should aim to rectify this oversight and reaffirm the commitment to safeguarding women from all forms of sexual violence.