TARAKESHWAR SAHU versus STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

TARAKESHWAR SAHU versus STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

Conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC was unsustainable because there was no evidence of penetration or attempt at penetration; however, on the proved facts that the appellant forcibly took a minor with intent that she be forced to illicit intercourse and used criminal force intending to outrage her modesty, the appellant could be convicted under Sections 366 and 354 IPC respectively by invoking Section 222 Cr.P.C.; the appellant was sentenced to five years RI under Section 366 IPC and two years RI under Section 354 IPC to run concurrently.

Parties
Appellant: TARAKESHWAR SAHU; Respondent: State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC set aside; convicted under Sections 366 and 354 IPC; sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
Rape (sections 375, 376 Ipc), Kidnapping and Abduction (section 366 Ipc), Outraging Modesty (section 354 Ipc), Conviction for Minor Offence Under Section 222 Cr.p.c., Attempt and Preparation Vs. Penetration
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Rape (sections 375, 376 Ipc) Kidnapping and Abduction (section 366 Ipc) Outraging Modesty (section 354 Ipc) Conviction for Minor Offence Under Section 222 Cr.p.c. Attempt and Preparation Vs. Penetration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TARAKESHWAR SAHU

Appellant

State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC was sustainable in absence of penetration
  2. 2 Whether Section 222 Cr.P.C. permits conviction for a minor offence not charged if its ingredients are proved
  3. 3 Whether the facts support conviction under Sections 366 and 354 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC was unsustainable because there was no evidence of penetration or attempt at penetration; however, on the proved facts that the appellant forcibly took a minor with intent that she be forced to illicit intercourse and used criminal force intending to outrage her modesty, the appellant could be convicted under Sections 366 and 354 IPC respectively by invoking Section 222 Cr.P.C.; the appellant was sentenced to five years RI under Section 366 IPC and two years RI under Section 354 IPC to run concurrently.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC set aside; convicted under Sections 366 and 354 IPC; sentences imposed.

Orders

  • Conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC set aside.
  • Appellant convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.