Whether Court can release accused prosecuted for the offence of attempt to rape on default bail on expiry of 60 from the date of the first remand if chargesheet is not filed within that period?

It is true that in Section 376(2) IPC, it is mentioned that

the imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder

of that person's natural life. It is a settled position that

imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of

that person's natural life. There is no dispute on that. But when

there is a specific provision in the Indian Penal Code which says

that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment,

imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to

imprisonment for twenty years we cannot ignore that provision

and interpret that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for

the remainder of that person's natural life even while computing

the detention period under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. As observed by

the Apex Court the interpretation of the provisions of 167(2)

Cr.PC should be liberal. On a reading of Section 167(2)(a)(ii)

Cr.P.C along with 511 of 376 IPC coupled with Section 57 of the

IPC, it is clear that an accused who is charged for the offence

under Section 511 of 376 IPC can be imprisonment only for a

period of ten years. If that is the case, the petitioner is entitled

statutory bail in this case. Admittedly, 60 days is over after the

first remand of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on

19.6.2020. As on today admittedly the final report is not filed.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled statutory bail under Section

167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

Bail Appl..No.4876 OF 2020

CRIME NO.584/2020 

VINESH VISWAMBARAN, Vs STATE OF KERALA

Dated: 18th day of August 2020

Print Page

Whether offence of attempt to Rape is made out even if accused has not undressed himself?

The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused

commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the

present case, the accusedappellant

pounced upon the

complainantvictim,

sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while

the complainantvictim

protested against his advancements and

wept. The evidence of the daughter (P.W.2) also reveals that she

pleaded with the accusedappellant

to spare her mother. In the

meantime, hearing such commotion, other villagers intervened

and threatened the accused of dire consequences pursuant to

which the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Here,

the evidence of independent witness Sohan Lal (P.W.4) assumes

significance in corroborating the events on the date of

occurrence, wherein he has averred that at around 10:00 p.m,

he heard noise coming from the house of complainantvictim,

pursuant to which he saw the accusedappellant’s

wife holding

his neck coming out from the house of the complainantvictim.

P.W.4

had also overheard the complainantvictim

complaining

that the accusedappellant

was quarreling with her.

10. Herein, although the complainantvictim

and her daughter were

pleading with the accused to let the complainantvictim

go, the

accusedappellant

did not show any reluctance that he was

going to stop from committing the aforesaid offence. Therefore,

had there been no intervention, the accusedappellant

would

have succeeded in executing his criminal design. The conduct of

the accused in the present case is indicative of his definite

intention to commit the said offence.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2127 OF 2009

CHAITU LAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

Dated:November 20, 2019

Print Page