Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking further investigation in a case where the police had filed a charge sheet only for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), despite the victim’s allegations that the accused attempted to force her into sexual intercourse before inflicting multiple grievous injuries upon her, a Single Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J. expressed shock that a statement which prima facie disclosed ingredients of an attempt to commit rape had escaped the attention of both the investigating agency and the trial court, the Court held that the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC revealed a “disturbing and disquieting” narrative.
Thus, the Court held that the investigation suffered from glaring omissions striking at the very root of a fair and comprehensive investigation and directed a fresh probe by the Crime Investigation Department (CID).
Background
In the present case, the accused invited the petitioner, his colleague, to an office party after which when both had allegedly consumed alcohol, the accused took the petitioner to drop her home. Instead of proceeding towards her residence, he allegedly drove the car to an isolated location and attempted to sexually assault her. The petitioner alleged that the accused made repeated sexual advances, attempted to force her into sexual intercourse, and subjected her to brutal physical violence when she resisted.
The petitioner suffered multiple grievous injuries and was admitted to a hospital. While she was undergoing treatment, the police recorded her statement, and even though she did not know Kannada, her statement was recorded in Kannada.
Based on the statement, a crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, a Medico Legal Certificate revealed serious injuries, including a ruptured lung and multiple stab wounds on her thighs, abdomen and below her breast. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only for the offence under Section 307 IPC, and the Sessions Court framed charges accordingly.
Contending that the investigation suffered serious omissions, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking further investigation under Section 173(8), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) by an independent investigating officer. She highlighted several investigative lapses, including the failure to investigate the allegations relating to sexual assault and attempted rape. As no effective action was taken and the trial proceeded after framing charges, she approached the High Court seeking appropriate directions.
Issue and Analysis
Taking account of the facts and the material placed on record, particularly the petitioner’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the Court opined that “The allegations do not merely portray an assault; they prima facie depict an attempt to commit rape, interrupted not by any voluntary desistance on the part of the accused but by the relentless resistance offered by the victim herself.”
Further, the Court noted that the petitioner had categorically stated that the accused demanded sexual intercourse, forcibly touched her body, attempted to remove her clothes, dragged her towards himself, pressed her face against his private parts, threatened to kill her if she did not submit to his demands and continued his aggression despite her repeated resistance. The Court stated that “It is not the account of a mere physical altercation; it is the narration of a desperate struggle by a woman fighting to preserve her bodily integrity and sexual autonomy against an assailant who, according to her, was determined to violate both.”
Examining law relating to attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, the Court reiterated that criminal liability does not arise only upon completion of the offence. The Court noted that an attempt begins when the accused moves beyond the stage of preparation and commences acts directed towards the commission of the intended offence and what is required is material demonstrating a determined intention to gratify sexual desire notwithstanding the victim’s resistance.
The Court observed that “It therefore becomes difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend how the investigating agency, despite such a graphic narration and despite the statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, confined the investigation only to the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.” The Court stated that the investigating agency appeared to have noticed the stab injuries but overlooked the conduct that preceded them so much so that the investigation focused on the physical injuries suffered by the petitioner but failed to examine whether those injuries were inflicted during an attempt to commit a sexual offence.
Further, the Court held that the inadequacies in the investigation did not end with the erroneous characterisation of the offence. The petitioner’s statement and the subsequent events disclosed disturbing gaps “that cast a serious shadow over the manner in which the investigation has been conducted”. The Court emphasised that the petitioner had pointed out several omissions, including the failure to investigate allegations relating to attempted rape, failure to secure and examine crucial forensic evidence, failure to send certain material objects for forensic analysis, and failure to collect biological samples from the vehicle where the incident allegedly took place despite the presence of blood stains.
The Court stated that “Equally disquieting is the fact that the jurisdictional Court, oblivious to the tenor and substance of the victim’s statement, proceeded to frame charge only for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.” The Court stressed that a statement which prima facie discloses ingredients of an attempt to commit rape appeared to have escaped the attention of both the investigating agency and the Court.
The Court observed that “such an omission, at least prima facie, strikes at the very root of a fair and comprehensive investigation”. Rather, they were significant investigative lapses capable of affecting the discovery of truth itself. In cases involving allegations of such grave offences, the investigating agency is expected to collect and examine every available piece of evidence so that the prosecution rests on a complete factual foundation. The Court stated that “an investigation that leaves behind obvious and potentially incriminating material without examination can scarcely inspire confidence”.
The Court stated that the issue involved in the case was whether the accused’s actions constituted only an assault amounting to an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, or whether they also revealed an attempt to commit rape punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.
The Court stated that Section 511 IPC proceeds on the well-settled principle that criminal culpability is not postponed until the final consummation of the offence and the law intervenes the moment preparation ripens into an overt act directed towards the commission of the intended crime. Thus, “where intention is translated into action, though the intended offence ultimately remains unconsummated, Section 511 steps in to visit the offender with penal consequences”.
Referring to Chaitu Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 20 SCC 272 and State of M.P. v. Mahendra, (2022) 12 SCC 442, the Court noted that an attempt begins when the accused moves beyond the stage of preparation and commences acts directed towards the commission of the intended offence. The Court stated that what is required is material demonstrating a determined intention to gratify sexual desire notwithstanding the victim’s resistance.
Further referring to Anant Thakur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 5 SCC 802 and Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (2023) 1 SCC 48, the Court reiterated that a fair investigation is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Constitutional Courts possess ample powers to direct further investigation, reinvestigation or investigation by an independent agency where the facts disclose serious deficiencies in the earlier investigation.
The Court emphasised that the filing of a charge sheet or framing of charges cannot operate as an absolute bar against further investigation. The Court held that “the Constitutional Courts, in order to preserve the sanctity of a fair investigation and thereby a fair trial, possess ample jurisdiction to direct further investigation even after the filing of the charge-sheet and even after the framing of charges, if the facts so warrant”.
The Court held that “the present case is one of those exceptional cases where the interests of justice command a fresh look into the investigation”. The Court emphasised that the omissions were neither trivial nor technical, and they strike at the very substratum of the prosecution.
Thus, the Court opined that “the ends of justice would be best served if further investigation is entrusted, not to the very investigating machinery that conducted the earlier investigation, but to the CID of the State, so that the investigation is carried to its logical culmination in an independent, comprehensive and impartial manner before the competent Court proceeds further with the trial”.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to entrust further investigation into the CID. The Court directed the State to make such entrustment within fifteen days and further directed the CID to complete the investigation and submit its report before the competent court within three months.
Further, the Court directed the Sessions Court not to proceed with the trial until the CID submitted its report and to regulate the subsequent proceedings in accordance with law.
[XXXX v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 22291 of 2025 (GM — RES), decided on 29-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Nagaraj R., Advocate
For the Respondent: Anoop Kumar, HCGP