LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RAJENDRA JAWANMAL GANDHI ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA JA WANMAL GANDHI ETC. SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sec. 37615111354-Bombay Children Act . 1948-Sec. 57. Rape-Committed on a minor girl-Medical Examination- Examination of witness-Conviction by Trial Court-On appeal High Court upselling the conviction under sec. 376 IPC and convicting the accused under sec. 354 IPC-The offence Held, was attempt to commit offence of rape-Conviction altered to one under sec. 3761511 !PC-A person charged D for an offence may be convicted for al/empt to commit that offence even if al/empt is not separately charged-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sec. 222. Criminal Trial : E Offence of sexual assault on minor children-Role of social organisations and press, electronic media Etc.-Held, procedure established by law lo be followed, otherwise it will lead to miscarriage of justice. The respondent-accused was prosecuted for offence under sec.376 Indian Penal Code 1860 and sec. 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 for F having committed rape on a minor girl of 8 years of age. The Prosecution case was that when the prosecutrix, a student of class IV was coming home from a private tuition, the accused caught hold of her on a secluded spot and pushed her inside the Maruti Car. Thereafter the accused pulled down her nicker and laid her on the seat of the car. The accused then G opened the zip of his pant and started pressing his penis on her private part. Thereafter the accused urinated and the girl felt wetness on her private part. After the girl was released she came home weeping and narrated the incident to her parents. The parents of the girl examined her private part and the garments and noticed the sticky substance on the midi frock as well as on H the nicker. 68 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. R.J. GANDHI 69 There was redness on her private part. The girl w.as given bath and was A sent to school as usual. After returning from school the girl complained of pain in her private part and she was taken to a family Doctor. The Doctor noticed inflammation of Lubium minus and without fully examining the prosecutrix advised the father to take her to a Civil Surgeon as it was a Medico legal case. The Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital examined the girl and B certified that rape was committed on her. The incidence appeared in the newspaper and there was immediate outcry in the public. The Civil Surgeon under intense public pressure formed a panel of three private Doctors to again examine the prosecutrix. The Trial Court after examining the evidence held that the accused was C guilty of the offence of rape and convicted the accused a!1d sentenced him to undergo 7 yrs. rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. On appeal, the High Court upset the conviction under sec. 376 IPC and instead convicted the accused for an offence under sec. 354 IPC and sec. 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The accused has committed the offence under sec. 376/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860. [87-H] D The circumstances show that the accused intended to commit rape on E the girl. In the commission of that crime, he laid the girl on the seat in the Maruti Car and then laid himself over her. He pulled down her nicker and also opened the zip of his pant and took out his male organ. He pressed his male organ on the private part of the girl. But since he discharged, he could not penetrate and was unable to complete the offence ofrape. However, it is clear that he did attempt to commit rape. [81-B] F 2. The High Court is right in its approach that from the medical evidence and the statement of the prosecutrix and attendant circumstances, it cannot be said that there was penetration and there was, therefore, no sexual intercourse though the ingredients of attempt to commit offence of rape are there. Therefore, the High Court after having come to the conclusion that G the accused was guilty of an offence under section 376/511 IPC could not have convicted the accused for an offence under section 354 IPC.(80-G; 87-E] 3. Section 511 IPC provides punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. In this case since the girl was under 12 yrs. of age and the Sessions Judge having H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A found that offence of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.