Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

An 'attempt' is a legal and factual issue. After the preparations are completed, the 'attempt' is the direct movement towards the commission-SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court set aside the conviction order U/S 354 IPC and upheld the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC and observed that An 'attempt' is a legal and factual issue. After the preparations are completed, the 'attempt' is the direct movement towards the commission. It is critical to demonstrate that the attempt was made with the intent to commit the offence. Even if the accused is unsuccessful in committing the main offence, an attempt is still possible. Similarly, if an attempt to commit a crime is successful, the crime has been committed for all intents and purposes. 

Minor prosecutrix X and Y were playing 'gilli­danda' in the street near the respondent's house. The respondent called them with the promise of money. Lured by the promise of money, both victims accompanied the respondent to his house, which was completely empty at the time of the incident. Taking advantage of the situation, the respondent shut all the house's doors from the inside. He then led the victims to one of the house's rooms and declared that he would marry them. It is claimed that the respondent then undressed X and forced her to lie down on the cotton cot that was kept in the room. Meanwhile, he undressed and began rubbing his genitals against X's genitals. The preceding act was then repeated with Y in the same manner. Both minors. He then led the victims to one of the rooms in the house and declared that he would marry them. It is stated that the respondent thereafter undressed X and made her lie down on the cotton cot which was kept in the room. Meanwhile, he also took off his clothes and started rubbing his genitals against the genitals of X. Further, in the same identical manner, the above­mentioned act was repeated with Y. Both the minor victims, as an obvious reaction to the respondent’s acts must have felt scared and shocked because of which they allegedly started crying. However, after a few days, both victims revealed the details of the incident to their friend who is named as ‘Z’ The mothers then communicated the same to their respective husbands. After a lapse of 15 days of the incident, the present FIR was thus filed. Apex court set aside the conviction order U/S 354 IPC and upheld the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC. 

D.D- 25.10. 2021

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  Versus   MAHENDRA ALIAS 

Latest Legal News