As per the case details, the 6-year-old prosecutrix alleged that the accused undressed both her and himself and fled the scene when she made hue and cry. However, there was no allegation that the accused attempted penetration.

The initial legal proceedings resulted in the accused being convicted under Sections 376/511 of the IPC, which deal with attempted rape. However, upon further deliberation, the court decided to amend this conviction to Section 354 of the IPC, which pertains to outraging a woman's modesty, reflecting a different interpretation of the accused's actions.

This decision was influenced by comparisons to similar cases, notably the case of Sittu v State of Rajasthan. In the Sittu case, the actions of the accused—who forcibly undressed a girl and attempted to penetrate her despite her resistance—were determined by the court to clearly exceed mere preparatory actions and thus amounted to an attempt to commit rape.

On the other hand, the case of Damodar Behera v State of Orissa provided a relevant legal precedent more closely aligned with the current case. In the Behera case, the accused had removed the victim's saree but subsequently fled upon noticing other people, leading the court to determine that such actions did not constitute an attempt to commit rape. Instead, these actions were deemed to fulfill the criteria for an indecent assault under Section 354 of the IPC.

Relying on the court orders cited, the Rajasthan High Court concluded, “Looking to the fact that the allegations have been leveled against the appellant, that he took-off the inner wear of the prosecutrix ‘D’ and also undressed himself, certainly, such act of the appellant does not amount to commission of offence under Section 376/511 IPC… In other words, the accused-appellant cannot be held to be guilty of attempt to commit rape.”

It further stated, “The prosecution has been able to prove the case of assault or use of illegal force on the prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2) with an intention to outrage her modesty or with knowledge that her modesty was likely to be outraged. Thus, it is a clear case of Section 354 I.P.C. as the act of present accused has not proceeded beyond the stage of preparation.”

The court noted that the accused was below 25 years of age when he committed the act and he remained in jail for a total period of about 2.5 months.

Given these factors, the court restricted the custodial sentence of the accused-appellant to the period already undergone by him, stating that this would meet the ends of justice. In its order, the court elaborated on the following reasons—

(i) Age at the time of the incident: The court highlighted, "At the time when the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. was committed, the accused was below 25 years of age."

(ii) Time elapsed since the incident: The court remarked on the significant passage of time since the incident, stating, "The incident took place on 9th March 1991 and near about 33 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically, and economically."

(iii) Duration of incarceration: The court noted, "He has been in jail for about 2½ months during investigation, trial, and appeal."

(iv) Decision against further incarceration: The order added, "After such a long time for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. the accused should now not be sent to jail and this Court does not think it proper to send back the accused-appellant in custody."

Based on these considerations, the court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-appellant. It modified the Sessions Judge's judgment and order dated 3 July 1991, changing the sections of the offence from Sections 376/511 to Section 354 of the IPC.