Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment o The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with [imprisonment o f any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under this section.
(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z's having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section.
Section 511, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 62 Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2004-03-10 (not same-date order-5 ROP; two Judgment files that date — used order-3.pdf). Crl A 1997. IPC 511 attempt: preparation is not attempt; attempt begins when the accused does an act towards commission that is more than preparatory. On the facts, pulling the victim and trying to undress her was still preparation, not attempt to rape. Map ipc 511 and successor bns 62.
On this section: s.511 attempt: preparation is not attempt. Attempt begins when the accused does an act towards commission that is more than preparatory. On the facts, pulling the victim and trying to undress her remained preparation, not attempt to rape.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer vs Mahendra @ Golu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The rubbing of genitals on a victim's body with the clear intent to commit sexual intercourse, when the accused has taken deliberate overt steps to isolate the victim, undress both himself and the victim, and perform acts reasonably proximate to penetration, constitutes an 'attempt' to commit rape under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, not mere 'preparation' or indecent assault under Section 354 IPC. The dividing line between preparation and attempt is determined by whether the accused has gone beyond the stage of preparation and commenced direct movement towards commission of the offence with the necessary intent, even if the attempt is interrupted before actual penetration.
On this section: General provision dealing with attempts to commit offences. The court applied this section to establish that the respondent's acts constituted an 'attempt' to commit rape, as the acts went beyond preparation and were reasonably proximate to the commission of rape.
-
Pandharinath vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person charged with the major offence of rape (Section 376 IPC) can be convicted of the lesser cognate offence of attempted rape (Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC) if: (1) the ingredients of the major offence are not fully established; (2) the ingredients of the lesser offence are proved; and (3) the two offences are cognate in nature, sharing common main ingredients but differing in degree of punishment. Specifically, the removal of a victim's clothes and gagging of the mouth, coupled with intent to commit rape, constitutes attempted rape even if full sexual intercourse is not established. The absence of cross-examination suggestions by the accused regarding key allegations amounts to acceptance of those allegations.
On this section: Attempt to commit offence; applied in conjunction with Section 376 to convict for attempted rape when full rape could not be established; the Supreme Court upheld this conviction.
-
State of Haryana vs Janak Singh & Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a court maintains conviction of an accused for rape under Section 376 IPC, the court is statutorily bound to impose a sentence of at least seven years imprisonment unless it assigns adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment for imposing a sentence of less than seven years. Merely stating that reduction is 'just and expedient' does not constitute adequate and special reasons as required by the proviso to Section 376(1) IPC. Such adequate and special reasons must contain extenuating circumstances which justify deviation from the minimum prescribed sentence. Sentence bargaining and casual reduction of sentences without proper reasons violate both the letter and spirit of Section 376 IPC and constitute an injustice to the victim and society.
On this section: Attempt; respondent Janak Singh convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 (rape and attempt to rape)
-
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated on allegations that fail to disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences charged, where the underlying dispute is fundamentally civil in nature (employment termination), and where procedural irregularities and discrepancies suggest deliberate misclassification of the matter to transform a civil dispute into criminal proceedings for purposes of coercion or settlement, constitute an abuse of legal process and travesty of justice warranting quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential ingredients of criminal offences must be strictly established: Section 323 requires voluntary act of causing actual hurt; Sections 504 and 509 require specific intentional insult with contextual details and intent to provoke or shock sense of decency; Section 506 requires threat with intent to cause alarm, not mere assertion of consequences of lawful termination. Mere allegations without substantiation of these ingredients do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Punishment for attempt to commit offence - Court held that since ingredients of Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 not made out, charge under Section 511 cannot stand
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Attempt - applied to the incomplete duty drawback claim which was stopped by intervention of authorities
-
Bibhishan vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is charged with rape under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. If medical evidence (comprising absence of injury, absence of semen, intact clothing, and absence of assailant's hair) contradicts the narrative of rape and the medical examination reveals the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, and if the lower courts have not correctly appreciated such medical evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted, even if the lower courts had convicted based on oral evidence.
On this section: Attempt to commit an offense - Upheld by High Court as alternative conviction basis when rape conviction was modified
-
Firosuddin Basheeruddin vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. When two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, that agreement constitutes criminal conspiracy even if the substantive crime is not committed. Not all conspirators need know every detail of the conspiracy; unity of objective is essential while there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to each other. Once the existence of conspiracy is proved, every act, declaration and writing of any conspirator referable to common intention is relevant against all conspirators. In organized crimes involving division of labour, each conspirator may perform different tasks in furtherance of the common objective, and each is liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of whether that particular conspirator directly participated in the substantive offense. The prosecution must establish the agreement to commit an unlawful act through proved facts and circumstances from which reasonable inference of conspiracy may be drawn, and the court must guard against unfairness by ensuring cogent evidence of involvement of each accused.
On this section: Punishment for attempt to commit offence - cited in context of attempted murder charges
-
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an offence under Section 315 IPC to be complete, it is not sufficient that an act is done with the intention to prevent a child from being born alive or to cause it to die after birth; the act must actually result in the prevention of the child being born alive or the death of the child after birth. If the child is born alive despite the alleged attempt, the offence under Section 315 is not made out, but an attempt charge under Section 315 read with Section 511 IPC may be appropriate. Additionally, a threat coupled with an overt act of violence constitutes criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, but the charge should only apply to those persons who made the threat or committed the overt act.
On this section: The court applied Section 511 IPC (Punishment for Attempt) to modify the charge against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law from Section 315 to Section 315 read with Section 511, recognizing that an attempt to cause miscarriage that did not result in prevention of birth could be prosecuted as an attempt.
-
Angrez Chand vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through Station House Officer Police Station Thathri District Doda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges, a trial court must conduct a limited prima facie assessment of whether the material on record raises strong suspicion of the accused's involvement in the alleged offence, without going into the probative value of evidence or making findings on matters that require opportunity for proper investigation or identification. A finding that a witness has not identified the accused cannot be made at the charge framing stage without first providing the witness an opportunity to identify through proper procedure such as a Test Identification Parade. The presence of prima facie material in the FIR and statements of parties is sufficient to frame charges, even if medical evidence does not support certain specific offences.
On this section: Attempt to commit offence - Court sustained discharge as insufficient evidence of attempt to rape.
-
Subash Chander vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged under Sections 376/511 IPC (rape and attempt to commit rape) and evidence establishes commission of lesser offence under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) of same nature, the trial court is competent to record conviction under Section 354 IPC even without formal charge under that section, as Section 236 CrPC permits conviction for offence not charged if it is of same nature as charged offence and proved on evidence. Additionally, delay of one day in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual assault of young women is justified when victim's family was away and matter was under panchayat consideration, and such delay cannot be termed inordinate or fatal to prosecution case.
On this section: Attempt to commit offence - Acquitted along with Section 376; no evidence of attempt to rape found
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Punishment for attempt to commit offences
-
Nishan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner's history of absconding during parole and committing further offences during the absconding period constitutes sufficient grounds to deny subsequent parole applications, even when compassionate grounds such as family illness are cited, as the state's security concerns and apprehension regarding threat to public order are well-founded and cannot be overridden by personal hardship.
On this section: Basis of charges for attempt to commit offence
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Attempt to commit offence - attempt to extort
-
R.c.sharma vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the allegations in a complaint disclose only a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot investigate such offence without obtaining prior written permission from a competent Magistrate as mandated by Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This is a mandatory provision, and any investigation conducted in violation thereof is illegal and invalid. Consequently, all proceedings arising from such illegal investigation, including charges framed and trial conducted, must be quashed and the accused discharged. The nature of the offence must be determined from the facts available at the time of registration, and police cannot circumvent this requirement by initially registering an FIR under a cognizable offence when the facts disclose only a non-cognizable offence.
On this section: Punishment for attempt to commit offence - initially charged
-
Ashok Chetri vs State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged rape, while victim testimony supported by corroborating evidence may establish the commission of a sexual offence, the absence of medical evidence of penetration when medical examination is conducted promptly without delay is a significant factor in determining whether the offence constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC or attempt to commit rape under Section 376/511 IPC. Penetration is a sine qua non for rape, and the court must be satisfied that the accused intended to gratify his passions and intended to do so at all events notwithstanding resistance. Indecent assaults must not be magnified into attempts at rape without clear evidence of such intent and determination.
On this section: Attempt to Commit Offence - Applied to modify conviction from rape to attempt to commit rape based on lack of penetration evidence
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Pursuant to the filing of the FIR, investigation was conducted by the police, which resulted in a charge-sheet dated 22.04.2010 being submitted to the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat. On 23.04.2010, the said Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused regarding offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). Pursuant to the summons, the accused appeared before the said Magistrate. On 10.06.2011, an application (Exhibit 28) was filed by Accused No.1 Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal …
Questions about Section 511
What have the courts held on Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code?
Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (10 Mar 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.511 attempt: preparation is not attempt. Attempt begins when the accused does an act towards commission that is more than preparatory. On the facts, pulling the victim and trying to undress her remained preparation, not attempt to rape. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 511, section 511 IPC, section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 511 in bns and ipc 511 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (10 Mar 2004).
What should I read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 62 (Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 511, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.