The judgment, delivered by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava on August 31, 2026, came in an appeal filed by Kamalendu Mahto against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ghatsila in East Singhbhum district.After 26 years of trial and appeal, the Jharkhand High Court has modified the conviction of a man accused of attempting to rape a woman, saying there was no specific evidence of an act sufficiently proximate to the commission of rape. However, the court held that the man had assaulted the woman with the intention of outraging her modesty.The judgment, delivered by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava on August 31, 2026, came in an appeal filed by Kamalendu Mahto against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ghatsila in East Singhbhum district.According to court documents, the woman was sleeping at her house on the night of December 1999, when she heard the sound of the door being forcibly opened. She alleged that Mahto entered the room, overlapped upon her body and, after raising her saree, attempted to commit rape.She allegedly raised an alarm and forcibly removed him from her body, following which her mother came to the room and Mahato fled. The woman allegedly narrated the incident to neighbours and eventually submitted a written report to the police, prompting an FIR to be registered for attempted rape and trespass under the Indian Penal Code.The lower court convicted Mahto on July 25, 2006, and sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment on July 28, 2006. Challenging the conviction before the High Court, the appellant argued that the investigating officer had not been examined, there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and the evidence did not establish the ingredients of an attempt to rape.The High Court, in its ruling, noted that while the prosecutrix herself had described the alleged assault, the other witnesses had not seen the occurrence and had witnessed the accused fleeing from the house.On the evidence regarding the alleged attempt to rape, the court observed that the statement of the victim in the FIR was that the accused had entered the house with the intention to outrage her modesty but did not specifically describe an overt act towards the commission of rape.Story continues below this adThe judgment states: “No witness has seen the occurrence, just they saw the accused fleeing away and occurrence was narrated by the victim only…The evidence of the prosecutrix, when considered in its entirety, does not disclose any specific overt act on the part of the appellant which can be said to constitute an act towards the commission of rape with her so as to attract the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C”.It said the conduct of the appellant showed that he had committed “an indecent assault” which was likely to outrage the woman’s modesty.Referring to the absence of evidence showing an act sufficiently proximate to sexual intercourse, the judgment states, “there is no specific evidence regarding any attempt on the part of the appellant to commit sexual intercourse or any act sufficiently proximate to the commission of rape.”The court said the immediate disclosures made by the woman to her family members indicated an act of assault and an attempt to outrage her modesty rather than an attempt to commit rape.Story continues below this adIt consequently held that the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were made out. The court said, “the appellant had committed an assault upon the prosecutrix with the intention of outraging or with knowledge that his act was likely to outrage her modesty.”The High Court therefore altered Mahto’s conviction from attempt to rape to the offence under Section 354 IPC. His conviction under Section 452 IPC was upheld.It also noted that more than 26 years had elapsed since the alleged offence and that he had remained in custody for about eight months during the trial. Considering these circumstances, the court sentenced him to the period already undergone, namely about eight months.Parth Jalan, who represented the appellant as amicus curiae, told The Indian Express that the High Court’s decision was entirely based on the lack of evidence to establish rape. Shubham Tigga is a Correspondent at The Indian Express, presently based in Pune, where he covers the intersections of infrastructure, labor, and the modern economy. His reporting focuses on civil aviation, urban mobility, the gig economy, and workers' unions, providing critical insights into how transit and commercial sectors impact the daily lives of citizens. Expertise & Background Before moving to Pune, he reported extensively from his home state of Chhattisgarh, where he focused on Indigenous (Adivasi) issues, environmental justice, and grassroots struggles in mainland India. This experience gives him a unique lens through which he analyzes the impact of large-scale infrastructure projects on local communities. Academic Foundation He is an alumnus of the prestigious Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), where he honed his skills in investigative reporting and ethical journalism. His academic training, combined with his field experience in Central India, allows him to navigate complex socio-economic landscapes with nuance and accuracy. You can reach out to him on LinkedIn ... Read More Tags:Jharkhand High Courtranchi