Facts of the Case

The case involves a heinous incident where two individuals allegedly assaulted an 11-year-old minor girl. The prosecution’s version of events asserts that the accused men grabbed the minor’s breasts, and one of them attempted to drag her beneath a culvert after breaking the string of her pyjama. These acts were initially treated by the trial court as an attempt to commit rape, invoking provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, specifically Section 376 (attempt to rape) and Section 18 (attempt to commit an offence).

However, the Allahabad High Court, in a judgment delivered on March 17, 2025, held that these actions did not amount to an attempt to rape but instead should be classified under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe), in conjunction with aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The High Court drew a legal distinction between preparation and attempt, suggesting that the actions did not go beyond the preparation stage and, therefore, did not qualify as an “attempt to rape.”

This controversial ruling provoked significant public outcry, leading the Supreme Court to take suo-motu cognizance of the matter after a letter from the NGO “We the Women of India” raised concerns about the insensitivity of the judgment. The Supreme Court intervened to examine the appropriateness of the High Court’s stance.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioners, acting on behalf of public interest, argued that the Allahabad High Court’s ruling was not only legally flawed but also displayed a disturbing lack of sensitivity. They emphasized that the actions described — including the grabbing of the minor’s breasts and attempting to drag her beneath the culvert — are severe forms of assault that clearly meet the threshold for an attempt to rape. The petitioners asserted that downplaying such actions with lesser charges would undermine the seriousness of the offence and fail to provide adequate protection to vulnerable minors under the POCSO Act.

Moreover, the petitioners pointed out that the High Court’s judgment was inconsistent with legal principles and public policy, which aim to protect children from such sexual assaults. The petitioners sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to stay the observations made by the Allahabad High Court and to direct that the case be considered under the more severe provisions of the law, consistent with the gravity of the crime.

Contention of the Respondent

The respondents, represented by the Uttar Pradesh state legal team, defended the Allahabad High Court’s ruling. They argued that the High Court’s interpretation of the facts was valid within the context of Indian criminal law. According to the defense, the actions of the accused did not cross the threshold required for an “attempt to rape.” They maintained that an “attempt” must go beyond preparation and must demonstrate an actual intent and effort to commit the crime, which the defense claimed was not evident in this case. Instead, they contended that the accused’s actions, though serious, could more appropriately be classified under Section 354-B of the IPC, which pertains to the assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe, and aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The respondents emphasized that the High Court had carefully considered the difference between preparation and attempt in its judgment and, therefore, argued that the High Court’s ruling was reasonable given the facts at hand.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, expressed strong disapproval of the ruling. Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih stated that the High Court’s observations were shockingly insensitive, particularly in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26, which seemed to trivialize the severity of the crimes committed against the minor. The Supreme Court observed that such actions, which included the physical assault of a minor, could not be treated as mere “preparation” but should have been regarded as serious attempts to commit rape, given the context of the incident.

The Court also noted that the judgment was delivered after the case had been reserved for more than four months, suggesting that the High Court had ample time to reflect on its findings. Despite this, the observations reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal principles that govern sexual assault and the protection of children. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s views were inconsistent with the tenets of law and depicted an “inhuman” approach to such a grave matter. As a result, the Supreme Court decided to stay the observations in the High Court’s judgment.

Court’s Order

The Supreme Court issued a stay on the controversial observations made by the Allahabad High Court in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 of its judgment. The Court also directed that the matter be reconsidered under the appropriate legal provisions, specifically focusing on whether the accused should be charged with an attempt to rape under Section 376 of the IPC, considering the nature of the assault.

In addition to staying the observations, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties involved in the case before the High Court. The Court sought to ensure that the case would be revisited with due attention to the legal protections provided by the POCSO Act and the IPC. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, and Attorney General R. Venkatramani were called upon to assist in the proceedings, underscoring the significance of this case in upholding the legal rights of children.

The matter was scheduled for further hearing in April 2025, with the Court directing that the Registrar communicate its order to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to ensure appropriate action was taken.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai