33 years after the sentence, the High Court said that the crime was not an attempt to rape but outraging the modesty of a woman

Jaipur, May 28 (HS). While disposing of a 33-year-old criminal case, the Rajasthan High Court has said that the lower court had sentenced the accused appellant for attempting to rape a six-year-old girl, whereas this case is not of attempted rape but of outraging the modesty of a girl. The court has changed the punishment given to the petitioner for attempting rape into a punishment for outraging the modesty of a girl and limited it to the period spent in jail. A single bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand gave this order while hearing the criminal petition of Suvalal. The court said in its order that there are three stages of attempting a crime. For a crime like attempted rape, it is necessary for the accused to move beyond the stage of preparation. The court said that the accused was 25 years old at the time of the incident and has been in jail for about two and a half months. This case lasted for 33 years and this period is enough to tire anyone mentally, physically and financially. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to send him back to jail now.

It was said in the petition that on March 9, 1991, the victim's grandfather had lodged a report in Todaraisingh police station. It was said in the report that his six-year-old granddaughter had gone to drink water at a pyaau. Meanwhile, the accused forcibly took her to a nearby dharamshala with the intention of raping her. During this, when the victim screamed, the villagers came there and saved her. Acting on the report, the police arrested the accused and presented a charge sheet in the court. On July 3, 1991, the trial court sentenced him to three years and six months for attempting rape. Challenging this order, it was said that the accused is accused of removing the victim's and his own underwear. He is not accused of attempting rape. In such a situation, the lower court has given a wrong punishment. On the other hand, the state government said that the victim had said in her statement that the accused had removed the clothes of both, but the defense did not cross-examine him. This proves that he attempted rape. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the court has disposed of the case.