Court Modifies Conviction in Sexual Assault Case

The Patna High Court has ruled that an accused lying on a woman, by itself, does not necessarily amount to an attempt to commit rape. The court held that the charge of attempted rape must be supported by evidence showing an act beyond preparation towards committing the offence.

In its October 8, 2026, judgment, Justice Sandeep Kumar modified the conviction of an accused from attempted rape under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to assault or criminal force with intent to outrage a woman's modesty under Section 354. However, the court upheld his conviction for house-trespass under Section 448 of the IPC.

The case concerned an incident on February 8, 2010, in Ballia village of Begusarai district. According to the complainant, a widow working as a labourer to support her children, the accused entered her thatched house at night, extinguished the lamp and lay on her while pressing her mouth to silence her cries. Villagers allegedly arrived after hearing her alarm and caught the accused.

The Additional Sessions Court had convicted him in 2013 for attempted rape and house-trespass, sentencing him to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

Lack of Evidence Prevents Attempted Rape Conviction

While examining the appeal, the High Court noted that the complainant had acknowledged during cross-examination that her clothes were not torn. No injury marks were found on her body, bedding or clothes, and she had not undergone a medical examination.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court observed that the available evidence did not establish that the accused had attempted penetration or taken steps such as undressing himself or the complainant that would demonstrate an attempt to commit rape.

The court nevertheless held that entering a widow's home late at night, lying on her and pressing her mouth constituted conduct capable of outraging a woman's modesty. It therefore maintained the conviction under Section 354 IPC alongside the house-trespass charge.

Considering that the accused was approximately 60 years old, had no previous criminal record and had spent over 13 years on bail after a brief period in custody, the court reduced his substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone.

The ruling distinguishes between an indecent assault and an attempt to commit rape, emphasising that the more serious charge requires evidence establishing the necessary criminal act and intention.