Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something, which is a step towards the commission of the offence. It has also been held that the moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence and mere intention to commit an offence, not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The judgement was passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mathura Thakur v. The State of Jharkhand [Cr. Rev. No. 228 of 2012] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary.
The case was registered under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under the same sections and cognizance of the offence was taken against him under the same sections, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. Wherein the petitioner was held guilty and convicted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the basic ingredients for the offence of attempt to commit rape are not satisfied in the present case and as such, the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and the present case, at best, maybe a case under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the present case is the first offence of the petitioner and the petitioner is already out of employment and the learned courts below have refused to give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer submitted that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence and coming to a different finding. He further submitted that there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel also submitted that considering the nature of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and this criminal revision petition is fit to be dismissed.
While dismissing the petition the court observed that “the evidence on record establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner intended and prepared to commit rape upon the victims and such intention and preparation translated into an attempt to commit rape and the petitioner tried to overpower the victims despite their protest and threatened to kill them. It has also been established beyond all reasonable doubts that the petitioner would have succeeded in committing rape upon the victims, had there been no intervention by witnesses.”