The supreme court bench comprising Justices Surya Kany and Hima Kohli, had clearly drawn a distinction between the stages of  crime i.e., preparation and an attempt to commit an offence. 

The instant  appeal was filed by State of Madhya Pradesh against the impugned judgement passed by the Principal bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby the respondents conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 under IPC was set aside and his sentence was reduced to 2 years Rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the case were: 2 victims each of 8 and 9 years were playing in the street located near the respondents house when he called them to his home by intimidation which at the time was empty. Seeing this as an opportunity he led one of the victims to one of his rooms and declared that he would marry them. After which, he started sexually assaulting the victims one after the other in the same manner. Eventually when their parents found out, after 15 days an FIR was filed. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC though acquitted him under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. And sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. The respondent challenged his conviction before the High court and his conviction was thereby modified.

The learned counsel for the State, Mr Mukul Singh submitted that there were several allegations of attempt to commit rape against the respondent. He urged that it was unjustified on part of the High court to modify the conviction of the trial court overlooking the soul of the statute and that the court failed miserably in recognizing the ingredients of ‘attempt to rape’ and lessened it to a case of ‘mere preparation’. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the prosecution could not prove anything beyond the preparation to commit rape. 

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

Criminal jurisprudence has stated the different stages of crime as follows: intention, preparation, attempt to commit and the act itself. ‘Attempt’ is the   direct   movement towards the commission after the preparations are over. There is a distinction between the preparation and the attempt to commit an offence which is  completely determined on the evaluation of the conduct of the accused and the nature of evidence produced. The Supreme court analyzed the distinction and held that the stage of ‘preparation’ consists of deliberation, devising or arranging the means or measures, which would be necessary for the commission of the offence whereas, an ‘attempt’ to commit the offence, starts immediately after the completion of preparation.  The court referred to its decision in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K [(1997) 7 SCC 677]  which held “  The   difference   between   preparation   and   an attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of   determination and what is necessary to prove for an offence of an attempt to commit rape has been committed is that the accused has gone beyond the stage of preparation”. 

In the case in hand, there were deliberate steps on part of the respondents to take the minor girls inside his house and undress them and sexually assault them and as the victims started crying he could not succeed with the actual penetration. Although, his action of stripping the victims was indeed an attempt and having done with the manifest intention to commit sexual intercourse the court held that the Trial court rightly held him guilty of at he attempt to commit rape within the ambit and scope of sec 511 read with sec 375 IPC. Hence, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of the High Court.

For reading the complete judgment, please click below:-

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alia Golu [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1827 OF 2011]