Lucknow, July 5 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has observed that undressing a woman in a bid to rape her amounts to the offence of attempt to rape under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Rajnish Kumar passed the judgment on July 1, rejecting an appeal filed by a convict in the offence of attempt to rape a victim. Since the case is from 2004, it was decided as per IPC and now the appeal has been adjudicated by the high court. In this case, one Pradeep Kumar in 2004 had forcibly abducted the victim and kept her confined to a house for nearly 20 days. Later, he had attempted to rape her by undressing her. He was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The convict had filed an appeal against the verdict but the high court upheld the decision of the trial court. The prosecution had alleged that the accused Pradeep Kumar forcibly took the victim in a van, confined her to a relative's house for about 20 days and during that time, he undressed her and attempted to sexually assault her. However, he failed to commit the offence of rape due to her resistance, the prosecution added. The court noted that it was proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with the intention of raping her. "He with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged the modesty of the victim but also attempted rape by undressing her. However, he could not commit intercourse on account of her protest. The victim has stated that the appellant had done bad work with her. The victim reiterated and supported the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the magistrate in her evidence during trial also," the court observed. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments in which it was held that the removal of the victim's clothes by the accused constitutes an attempt to rape. It also dismissed the appellant's contention that the delay in filing the complaint weakened the prosecution's case, noting that the delay had been adequately explained. The high court further rejected the argument that the accused was falsely implicated due to enmity, stating that the appellant had failed to substantiate this claim. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH...