DEVANALLD DIWAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Revision Petition by the applicant against framing charge under Section 376/511 of I.P.C. As per the prosecution case, on 22/2/1991 the prosecutor Girjabai visited the house of the accused-applicant; the applicant-accused gave some money to Girjabai and directed her to bring some Gudakhu and Chocolates. When she came back with Gudakhu and Chocolate, applicant took her to his garden on the pretext that he will give her Aawla. On reaching the garden, the applicant removed her under garments and prepared himself for final act of commission of sexual intercourse with Girjabai, but at that juncture Girjabai, who is aged about 8 years, raised hue and cry. Then the applicant ran away from the spot. The applicant was arrested and the charge as aforesaid was framed against him.

(2.) It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that as there is no penetrating, no charge could have been framed under section 376 of I.P.C. and at the most the Court should have frame charge under section 354 of I.P.C.

(3.) In every crime, first there is intention to commit it, secondly, there is preparation to commit a crime and, thirdly, there is attempt to commit the crime. If the third stage is completed, then the crime is complete but if the third stage is not complete then it remains to be an attempt only and that in eventually which has been taken into confederation under Section 511 of I.P.C.