Case Background
This criminal appeal (SJ) No. 18 of 2014 was filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant, challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura.
The Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2012 arose out of Shekhopur Sarai P.S. Case No. 02 of 2012 / G.R. No. 18 of 2012. By judgment and order dated 21.12.2013, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 354, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two years under Section 354 IPC, one month under Section 341 IPC, and six months under Section 323 IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with a further one month simple imprisonment in default of fine. All sentences were to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant approached the Patna High Court, where the matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya, culminating in the judgment dated 06.08.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The prosecution case, as recorded in the fardbeyan of the informant Priti Kumari (PW-3), was that on 05.01.2012 at about 7:45 PM, she went to use the toilet situated on her own land near her house. When she came out, the accused caught her hand, knocked her down, opened his lungi, forcibly removed her salwar and tried to sexually assault her.
On her raising alarm, her grandfather, Chamari Ram (PW-1), and her mother, Babita Devi (PW-2), came there. The accused allegedly assaulted both of them with a stick, causing, among other injuries, a fracture in the hand of PW-1. He also allegedly abused them in filthy language. Due to the late hour, the informant did not go to the police station immediately, but lodged the case next morning.
After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under several sections including Sections 447, 341, 354, 376 read with 511, 325 and 506 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, prosecution evidence was taken, and eventually the trial court convicted the appellant only under Sections 354, 341 and 323 IPC.
Evidence of the injured witnesses and victim
PW-1, the grandfather and an injured witness, stated that his granddaughter went to defecate and the appellant caught her and tried to rape her. On hearing her screams, he reached the place, and the accused broke his hand by hitting him with a stick when he tried to intervene. He described the deformity in his hand, which was hanging below the elbow and bent from its natural position. He also mentioned that he was treated at the village hospital and plaster was applied.
In cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that the toilet was built on his own land, about four feet away. He reiterated that the accused, holding a stick, hit him as soon as he reached the spot, and that his daughter-in-law and granddaughter tried to save him. He denied the defence suggestion that no such incident occurred or that the case was filed due to some dispute over shop dues.
PW-2, the mother of the informant and another injured witness, stated that at about 7–7:30 PM her daughter had gone to the washroom when the accused knocked her down and tried to rape her. On hearing the shout, first her father-in-law and then she herself went to the place. She found that her daughter was being molested. The accused assaulted PW-1 with a stick, breaking his hand, and also hit PW-2 before running away.
She further said she remained admitted in hospital for three days and suffered injuries on her mouth and chin. She denied that the case was false or connected to any demand over shop items.
PW-3, the informant and victim, stated that on 05.01.2012 at about 7:30 PM she went to the toilet next to her house. When she came out, the accused caught her, pushed her to the ground, started undressing his lungi and opened her salwar, and tried to commit a “dirty act”. On her shouting, her grandfather arrived, whom the accused assaulted with a stick, breaking his hand. The accused also hit her and her mother when she came. He allegedly entered their house and threatened to kill them if they disclosed the incident. The next morning, she lodged the written complaint at the police station.
In her cross-examination, PW-3 described that the shop of the accused’s father was a few steps away from her house and the toilet was outside the house near a road. She said that when the accused caught her, she shouted, and after two to three minutes her grandfather came, at which point the accused left her and started beating him. She said the quarrel lasted about 15 minutes; during the attempt to open her salwar, it got torn, though she did not hand over that salwar to the police. She also said that though some outsiders came to the place, no one intervened. She denied having any dispute regarding shop purchases.
Medical and police evidence
PW-4, Dr. Md. Vasim, stated that on 06.01.2012, while posted as Medical Officer at Shekhopur Sarai PHC, he examined PW-1, aged about 80 years, and found:
1. Pain and tenderness at the left forearm.
2. Pain and tenderness all over the body.
He advised X-ray for injury no. 1 and opined that injury no. 2 was caused by hard and blunt substance and simple in nature. He confirmed that the injury report was written and signed by him. In cross-examination, he accepted that the time of examination had not been mentioned and that the injured did not return later with the X-ray report.
PW-7, the first Investigating Officer, deposed that on 06.01.2012, on the basis of the fardbeyan, he registered the case, examined witnesses and sent PW-1 and PW-2 for treatment. He inspected the place of occurrence near the toilet situated on the informant’s land, and prepared an observation note. He admitted that the informant did not produce clothes and they were not seized. He denied the suggestion that he had not inspected the place of occurrence or sent the injured for treatment.
PW-8, the second Investigating Officer, stated that after the case was handed over to him on 19.03.2012, he tried to obtain the injury report; the doctor informed him it would be sent later. On the orders of his senior officer, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 447, 341, 354, 376 read with 511, 325 and 506 IPC.
Defence arguments in appeal
Counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of conviction and sentence was unsustainable in law and facts. He submitted that:
- The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, being family members and “interested witnesses”, was not corroborated by any independent witness.
- There were alleged contradictions between the testimony of PW-3 and those of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 concerning the allegation under Section 354 IPC.
- The medical evidence was incomplete as the X-ray report of the alleged fracture was not produced, and the doctor had not mentioned time of examination.
- The case was allegedly motivated by neighbourly feud and dispute over shop dues with the appellant’s father, and the graver allegations of Section 376/511 IPC were added with ulterior motive.
- The occurrence took place in 2012, the appeal was pending since 2014, and the appellant had suffered long mental agony and had already undergone some custody.
State’s stand
The learned APP supported the conviction and sentence, submitting that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s view.
Assessment by the Patna High Court
The Court carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. It noted that although PW-1 and PW-2 were family members and therefore “interested” witnesses, they were at the same time injured witnesses and natural witnesses, having reached the place immediately on hearing the victim’s screams.
The Court held that their presence was spontaneous and contemporaneous to the incident, leaving little scope for fabrication. Their testimonies were therefore relevant and reliable in terms of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, as part of the same transaction.
The Court also reiterated the settled law that testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the victim, if their evidence inspires confidence and is free from major contradictions or exaggerations. It found that PW-1 and PW-2 had given consistent versions which fully supported the account of PW-3 and aligned with the investigation of the IO.
On the legal distinction between attempt to rape and sexual harassment/assault, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Madanlal v. State of J&K, (1997) 7 SCC 677, which explains the difference between “preparation” and “attempt” to commit rape, and requires that the act must have gone beyond preparation to constitute attempt.
The Court then examined whether the facts proved in this case showed that the accused had moved beyond preparation into the stage of attempt to commit rape. It noted that PW-3 had stated that the accused knocked her down, removed his lungi and opened her salwar and misbehaved indecently, but she did not say that she was made fully naked or that there was exposure or attempt to expose his private parts in a manner described in Madanlal.
The Court observed that, on her raising alarm, her grandfather arrived and she was saved. From these facts, the Court concluded that the accused had not gone beyond the stage of preparation so as to constitute attempt to rape. Therefore, the charge of attempt to commit rape was not made out.
At the same time, placing reliance on its earlier decision in Md. Zafre Imam @ Mangla v. State of Bihar (Cr. App. No. 153 of 2008), the Court held that the act of catching hold of the victim, knocking her down, opening her salwar and misbehaving indecently clearly constituted use of criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty, fully attracting Section 354 IPC.
The Court found no reason why a minor informant would falsely implicate the accused for an occurrence near her house at about 7:45 PM. It held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that:
- The accused used criminal force against the informant with intention to outrage her modesty.
- When PW-1 and PW-2 came to save her, he assaulted them and then fled, making out offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC as well.
Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 354, 341 and 323 IPC.
Reduction of sentence
On the question of sentence, the Court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Tribhuwan, (2018) 1 SCC 90, that time spent in custody, both as undertrial and as a convicted person, may be considered and set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The Court noted that the appellant was about 19 years old at the time of the trial court’s judgment, had already undergone about four months of judicial custody, and had been facing the case and appeal for about 11–12 years, with no adverse report about his conduct placed before the Court.
Taking these circumstances into account, while upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. It discharged the appellant from further liability on his bail bonds, if any, and partly allowed the appeal.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for victims and accused persons in sexual assault and modesty outraging cases in Bihar and beyond.
First, the Patna High Court clearly accepted the testimony of close family members who are injured and natural witnesses. It shows that such evidence cannot be rejected merely because they are related, if their statements are consistent and believable.
Second, the judgment explains in simple, factual terms the difference between “attempt to rape” and “outraging modesty” under Section 354 IPC. The Court stresses that for attempt to rape, the act must go beyond preparation. Where the accused uses criminal force and behaves indecently but is stopped before that stage, Section 354 IPC will apply.
Third, the Court balanced punishment with passage of time and the young age of the offender. While it refused to disturb the conviction, it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the 11–12 years of prolonged proceedings and absence of further adverse conduct.
For ordinary readers, this means that if a girl is caught, knocked down, her clothes are interfered with and she is indecently touched, the law firmly treats it as a crime of outraging modesty. Even without full rape or attempt to rape, the offender can be convicted under Section 354 IPC, and assault on family members who intervene can lead to added liability under Sections 323 and 341 IPC.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant used criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the informant and assaulted her mother and grandfather.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the consistent testimonies of the victim and injured witnesses, supported by medical and investigative evidence, proved offences under Sections 354, 341 and 323 IPC. - Issue: Whether the facts established amounted to an attempt to commit rape or only to outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC.
Answer: Only outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC. The Court held that the accused’s acts did not cross the line from preparation to attempt to rape, as he did not go to the extent required by law for an “attempt”. - Issue: Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court required interference, given the appellant’s age, custody period and delay in disposal.
Answer: Yes, to the limited extent of reducing the sentence. The Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, discharging the appellant from further bail bond obligations.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Madanlal v. State of J&K, (1997) 7 SCC 677 – on the difference between preparation and attempt to commit rape.
- Md. Zafre Imam @ Mangla v. State of Bihar, Cr. App. No. 153 of 2008 – relied on to hold that forcible catching and opening a girl’s salwar amounts to an offence under Section 354 IPC.
- State of U.P. v. Tribhuwan, (2018) 1 SCC 90 – on considering time spent in custody and benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. while deciding sentence.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 18 of 2014; arising out of Shekhopur Sarai P.S. Case No. 02 of 2012 / G.R. No. 18 of 2012
Case Title: Raj Kumar @ Seni Mahto v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 867
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya
Date of High Court Judgment: 06.08.2025
Date of Trial Court Judgment and Sentence: 21.12.2013
Advocates for Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for State/Respondent: Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
Nature of Case: Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction and sentence under Sections 354, 341 and 323 IPC in a Sessions Trial arising from a police station case.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
