New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a contentious ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which held that acts such as grabbing a child victim’s breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert do not amount to rape or an attempt to rape.
The case will be heard by a Bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The case relates to an order passed on March 17, 2025, by the Allahabad High Court, in which the said controversial remarks were passed.
Notably, on March 24, a Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justices Bela Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale had declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the same High Court order.
On March 17, the Allahabad High Court modified a trial court’s summoning order in a case involving two accused, Pawan and Akash. The trial court had initially summoned them under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (rape) and Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act (punishment for attempt to commit an offence).
However, the High Court altered the charges, directing that the accused be tried under the lesser charge of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) along with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court, who passed the order in his observations, stated: “The allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down her lower garment by breaking its string. They also attempted to drag her beneath a culvert. However, due to the intervention of witnesses, they fled the scene. These facts alone are insufficient to infer that the accused had determined intent to commit rape, as no further act is attributed to them to support such an inference.”
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly assaulted an 11-year-old girl and attempted to remove her clothing before being stopped by bystanders. The trial court found the case fit for charges of attempted rape and issued a summon under Section 376 IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
However, the accused approached the High Court, contending that even if the complaint was taken at face value, no offence of rape was made out. They argued that the case, at most, should be considered under Sections 354 and 354-B IPC, along with relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.
The High Court observed that there was no material evidence proving the accused had a determined intent to commit rape. It noted that neither the complaint nor witness statements suggested an actual attempt at penetrative sexual assault.
“To establish a charge of attempted rape, the prosecution must show that the act progressed beyond mere preparation to an actual attempt. The difference between preparation and attempt consists primarily in the greater degree of determination,” the High Court remarked in its order.
Consequently, the summoning order was modified, and the trial court was directed to issue a fresh order under the revised charges.
The Supreme Court’s suo motu action signals its concern over the legal reasoning behind the High Court’s ruling.
As the case is set to be heard by the apex court tomorrow (on Wednesday), legal experts anticipate a detailed examination of the interpretation of ‘attempt to rape’ under Indian law and its implications for child protection laws.
The upcoming hearings in the Supreme Court are expected to clarify critical aspects of sexual offence jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving minors, and could have a far-reaching impact on how courts interpret and categorize such offences in the future./ UNI
