RAMKRIPAL S/O SHYAMLAL CHARMAKAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 19-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.,; 
RAMKRIPAL S/O SHYAMLAL CHARMAKAR 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
MARCH 19, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Ss. 375 and 376-Rape-Evidence ofprosecutrix supported by medical c 
evidence- Conviction by trial court-Affirmed by High Court-Held, courts 
below were perfectly justified in their view. 
s.354-0utraging modesty of a woman-Ingredients explained. 
s.511-Attempt to commit offence-Constituent of the provision 
D 
discussed 
j 
Appellant was prosecuted under Section 376 IPC. The prosecution ca~e 
was that when the prosecutrix after collecting green grass was returning· 
home, the appellant ravished her. The trial court convicted the accused of the 
-
offence charged. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. 
E 
In the present appeal it was contended for the accused-appellant that 
keeping in view the inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and from 
the evidence of the doctors, in any event, no offence under section 376 IPC 
was made out and at the most the offence could be in terms of section 354 or 
) 
section 511 IPC. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC 
are: (a) that the assault must be on a woman; (b) that the accused must have 
used criminal force on her; and (c) that the criminal force must have been G 
used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. What constitutes 
_) 
an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined in IPC. The essence of a 
woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux 
of the matter. The ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been 
125 
H 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C;R. 
A outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could·be:perceived 
as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency.of a woman. 
(Paras 9;10.and 13] (128-E,:F; :129..;GI 
Rupan Deal Bajaj (Mrs.) and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr., 
(1995] 6 SCC 1941; Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra and 
B Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 3712 and State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR (1967) SC 
633, relied on. 
Rex v. James Llyod, (1876) 7 C&P 817, referred to. 
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.), referred to. 
c 
2.1. Attemptto commit an offence, as envisagediby.section.511 •IPC, can 
be said to begin when the preparations are complete.and.the culprit commences 
to do something with the intention of committing the offence.and which is a 
step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do 
an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the 
D offence. The word 'attempt' is not itself defined, and must, therefore, be taken 
in its ordinary meaning. This is exactly what the provisions of Section 511 · 
require. (Para 15] (130-B, CJ 
2.2. An attempt consists in it the intent to .commit a ciime, Jailing short 
E of, its actual co~mission or consummation/completio,n. It may consequently 
be defined as that which if not prevented would 'have resulted in.the:full 
consummation of the act attempted. The illustrations given in Section 5Il 
clearly show the •legislative :intention ,to make a difference:bet~een ,the:cases 
of a mere preparation and an attempt. (Para 16] (130-G-H; 131-AI 
F 
3. The sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration, :and :not 
ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit 
rape and not actual rape. Definition of ·~rape" as contained :in•section 375 
IPC refers ~o "sexual intercourse" and the Explanation appended to the section 
provides that penetration is sufficient to.constitute1the·sexual intercourse 
necessary to the offence of rape. ·Intercourse means •sexual connection. !In the 
G instant case, that connection has.been,clearly established.'Whenvthe evidence 
I. 1995[4] Supp. SCR 237. 
2. 2004[2] SCR 287. 
H 3. 1966[2] SCR 286_ 
-+---
~-
·-t-
RAMKRIPAL S/0 SHYAMLAL CHARMAKAR "- STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [PASAYAT, !.] 
127 
of the prosecutrix alongwith that of the doctor (PW-7) is considered in the A 
proper perspective, it is clear that the commission of actual rape has been 
established. Courts below were perfectly justified in their view. 
[Para 17 and 181 (131-A-B-C) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 
~ 
B 
-..J 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1 l.OL2005 of the High Court at 
) 
,J 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No. 178 of 1990. 
Promila, (A.C.) fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.