Supreme Court Restores Conviction for Attempt to Rape: A Critical Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu, addressed a critical issue concerning the distinction between preparation and attempt in cases of sexual offenses. The appeal, registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1827 of 2011, challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision, which had reduced the conviction of the accused from attempt to commit rape (Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC) to merely outraging the modesty of a woman (Section 354 IPC). The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated October 25, 2021, delivered by Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, restored the trial court’s conviction, reaffirming that the accused’s actions had crossed the stage of preparation and constituted an attempt to commit rape.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around an incident that occurred a fortnight before December 20, 2005, when two minor victims, aged 9 and 8 years, were lured into the accused’s house under false pretenses. The accused promised them money and, once inside, attempted sexual assault. The details of the case were uncovered after one of the children confided in a friend, leading to a formal complaint and legal proceedings.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC (attempt to commit rape) and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000. The court emphasized that the accused had gone beyond mere preparation and had engaged in clear acts indicating an attempt to commit the offense.

High Court’s Decision

The accused appealed against his conviction before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court, in its ruling on October 8, 2009, overturned the trial court’s decision and instead convicted him under Section 354 IPC, reducing his sentence to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court reasoned that the accused had not crossed the stage of preparation and had not made a full-fledged attempt to commit rape.

Key Extract from the High Court Judgment

“On going through the evidence on record, particularly allegations in FIR Ex.P/1, I am of the view that the appellant did not make all efforts to attempt to commit rape with both prosecutrix, he had not gone beyond the stage of preparation and he did not intend to do so at all events.”

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner’s Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh, represented by its counsel, argued that:

The victims’ testimonies were consistent and credible, detailing the sexual assault attempts.
The accused had crossed the stage of preparation by undressing the victims, undressing himself, and making physical contact with his genitals.
The High Court misinterpreted the legal distinction between preparation and attempt.
The accused had deliberately silenced the victims and threatened them, which further indicated his criminal intent.

Respondent’s Arguments

The defense counsel contended that:

The accused’s actions did not amount to an attempt as he had not achieved penetration.
There was no medical evidence to support the prosecution’s claims.
The accused had only prepared for the act but did not make an actual attempt.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court scrutinized the facts and established legal principles distinguishing preparation from attempt. It reaffirmed that:

‘Attempt’ begins when an individual takes a direct step towards committing the offense after preparation.
‘Preparation’ involves making arrangements for committing an offense, while ‘attempt’ is the execution of that intention.
The accused’s actions—luring minor victims, locking the door, undressing, and making sexual contact—were more than mere preparation and constituted an attempt to commit rape.
The High Court erred in downplaying the seriousness of the crime by reducing it to outraging modesty.

Key Extract from the Supreme Court Judgment

“The act of the respondent of luring the minor girls, taking them inside the room, closing the doors, and taking the victims to a room with the motive of carnal knowledge, was the end of ‘preparation’ to commit the offense. His following action of stripping the prosecutrices and himself, and rubbing his genitals against those of the victims was indeed an endeavor to commit sexual intercourse.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment.
The trial court’s conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC was restored.
The accused was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
If the accused failed to surrender, law enforcement agencies were directed to arrest him immediately.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s stance on protecting minors from sexual offenses and upholds strict standards for evaluating criminal intent. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as an important precedent, ensuring that perpetrators of sexual crimes against children are held accountable and cannot escape liability due to misinterpretation of legal provisions.

Petitioner Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Mahendra Alias Golu.
Judgment By: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hima Kohli.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 25-10-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: state-of-madhya-prad-vs-mahendra-alias-golu-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-25-10-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Rape Cases
See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category