Undressing Victim Despite Protest Makes Out Attempt to Rape, Rules Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on July 1, 2025, upheld the conviction of a man for attempting to rape a girl after forcibly abducting and detaining her for nearly 20 days, holding that the offence of attempt to rape is made out even if attempt to penetration does not occur clearly, as long as intent and overt acts are established.

Court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's findings in Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2006), where the top court had set aside the conviction under Section 376/511 of the IPC (attempt to rape) recording a finding that the accused had neither undressed himself nor even asked the prosecutrix to undress so there was no question of penetration. The top court had said that "in the absence of any attempt to penetrate, the conviction under Section 376/511 IPC is wholly illegal and unsustainable".

The bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar emphasised that the ruling in the said case was not applicable to the case at hand as here the victim had stated not only in her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the magistrate but in evidence before the trial court also that the appellant had undressed her, however on her protest, he could not do intercourse.

The single judge bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Pandharinath vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) where it was held that if the accused-appellant had removed the victim's clothes and he had not rebutted this statement of the prosecutrix in his examination-in-chief, it was definitely a case of attempt to rape.

In every crime, there is first, the intention to commit, secondly, preparation to commit it, and thirdly, the attempt to commit it. If the third stage, that is 'the attempt' is successful, then the crime is complete. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete, but the law punishes the person attempting the Act under Section 511 IPC, the high court said, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).

The single judge bench also relied upon the judgment of a division bench of the high court in Israil vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013:AHC-LKO:14455) where it was held that in order to hold the accused guilty of an attempt to commit rape the court has to be satisfied that the accused, when he laid down the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify the passion upon her but that he intended to do so in all events, notwithstanding any resistance on her part. 

Court found that in the present case, it had been proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with intention of marrying and having intercourse with her. The appellant with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged her modesty but also attempted rape by undressing her, however, he could not do so due to victim's protest. 

"Nothing could be extracted from her (the victim) in cross examination, which may create any doubt on her version or about the veracity of her evidence," the single judge bench noted. 

Further, since the FIR was lodged by the girl’s mother on August 31, 2004, 21 days after the girl went missing, the appellant argued that the delay pointed to fabrication and that the incident was consensual. However, court rejected both claims, stating that the delay had been explained and that such delays are not unusual in cases involving sexual assault due to societal stigma.

Therefore, finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order, court dismissed the appeal against conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376/511 and 354 of the IPC.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu @ Bhuriya vs. State of UP

Download judgment here