Allahabad High Court ruled that forcibly undressing a woman with intent to rape is a clear attempt to rape under IPC. The Court confirmed a 10-year sentence for the accused in a 2004 kidnapping and assault case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court clearly said that if a man forcibly undresses a woman to rape her, it will be considered an “attempt to rape” under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even if the actual rape did not happen.
This case goes back to the year 2004. A man named Pradeep Kumar forcefully kidnapped a woman. He took her in a Maruti van and kept her locked in a house belonging to his relative for around 20 days. During that time, he tried to rape her by taking off her clothes. But the woman resisted him strongly and he could not complete the act of rape.
The trial court had already found Pradeep Kumar guilty and punished him with 10 years of imprisonment. When he challenged this punishment, Justice Rajnish Kumar of the Allahabad High Court confirmed the trial court’s decision and did not give him any relief.
The prosecution told the court that Pradeep Kumar had abducted the victim and kept her hidden for many days. During this time, he tried to sexually assault her by undressing her. But the woman fought back bravely and stopped him from raping her.
The High Court observed:
“He with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged the modesty of the victim but also attempted rape by undressing her. However, he could not commit intercourse on account of her protest. The victim has stated that the appellant had done bad work with her. The victim reiterated and supported the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate in her evidence during trial also.”
The Court referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions, which say that removing the clothes of a woman to rape her is itself an attempt to rape, even if the act is not completed.
The accused, Pradeep Kumar, tried to defend himself by saying that the victim filed the complaint very late, so it should not be believed. But the High Court said that the delay was properly explained, and it does not make the case weak.
He also said that he was being falsely accused because of personal enmity. But the Court did not agree. The Court said that he could not prove any kind of enmity with the victim or her family.
“The appellant also tried to establish prior relationship with the victim by producing certain letters, which have been denied to be written by the victim by her in evidence and no cogent material could be placed on record to prove the same. The delay in lodging the FIR has properly been explained in the FIR itself and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the delay is immaterial in such cases, particularly when the prosecution has proved its case. The plea of implication of the applicant on the ground of enmity could not be proved by the appellant and no evidence could be adduced to prove any enmity,”
-the Court added.
Advocate Ashutosh Singh and B.S. Patel appeared on behalf of the accused.
Additional Government Advocate Badrul Hasan represented the State.
CASE TITLE:
Pradeep Kumar v State
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rape
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Allahabad High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
