Jharkhand High Court alters 26-year-old rape attempt conviction to indecent assault

The Jharkhand High Court has altered a two-decade-old conviction in a rape attempt case, holding that the evidence established an indecent assault rather than an attempt to commit rape. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava delivered the judgment on August 31, 2026, in an appeal by Kamalendu Mahto against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ghatsila in East Singhbhum district.

The case dates back to a night in December 1999, when the woman was asleep at her home and heard her door being forced open. She alleged that Mahto entered, lay over her body and, after lifting her saree, attempted to rape her. She raised an alarm and pushed him away, after which her mother came into the room and Mahto fled. The woman informed her neighbours and later filed a written complaint with the police, leading to an FIR for attempted rape and trespass under the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court convicted Mahto on July 25, 2006, and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment on July 28, 2006. In his appeal, he contended that the investigating officer had not been examined, that the FIR was delayed, and that the evidence did not make out the ingredients of an attempt to rape.

The High Court noted that while the woman had described the assault herself, other witnesses had not seen the occurrence and had only seen the accused running away from the house. It observed that her FIR statement said the accused had entered with the intention to outrage her modesty but did not describe any specific overt act towards the commission of rape.

The judgment stated that no witness had seen the occurrence and that the victim's evidence, considered as a whole, did not disclose any specific overt act constituting a step towards the commission of rape so as to attract Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC. It further noted the absence of evidence of any act sufficiently proximate to sexual intercourse.

The court held that the immediate disclosures made by the woman to her family members pointed to an assault and an attempt to outrage her modesty rather than an attempt to commit rape. It concluded that the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were made out, finding that the appellant had assaulted the woman with the intention of outraging her modesty or with knowledge that his act was likely to do so.

Mahto's conviction was accordingly altered from attempt to rape to the offence under Section 354 IPC, while his conviction under Section 452 IPC was upheld. Noting that more than 26 years had passed since the alleged offence and that he had spent about eight months in custody during trial, the court sentenced him to the period already undergone. Parth Jalan, who appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant, said the decision rested entirely on the lack of evidence to establish rape.