Minor Victim's Mother Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Allahabad HC's Controversial Ruling On Rape Attempt

The Allahabad High Court's controversial ruling - which held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of attempt to rape - has been challenged in the Supreme Court by the mother of the victim girl.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had suo motu stayed the High Court's decision - which caused a massive public outrage online - after observing that the HC depicted a total lack of sensitivity. 

Today, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih considered the petition filed by the complainant (victim's mother) along with an organisation named "Just Rights For Children Alliance", challenging the Allahabad High Court order.

The matter was tagged with the suo motu case registered by the Court against the same High Court decision. On a specific request of the petitioners, the bench further directed the Registry of the High Court to redact the name of the complainant in the case records.

To recap, as per the prosecution, the accused persons, Pawan and Akash, grabbed the breasts of the 11-year-old victim and one of them, namely Akash, broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her beneath the culvert. Finding it to be a case of attempt to rape or attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault within the purview of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the trial court invoked Section 376 with Section 18 (attempt to commit an offence) of the POCSO Act and issued summoning order under these sections.

However, the High Court instead directed that the accused be tried under the minor charge of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) read with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). The order created a huge controversy, with several members of the public criticizing it. Seemingly, the High Court drew a distinction between preparation and attempt.

“The allegations levelled against the accused Pawan and Akash and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination,” a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed, as it partly allowed the criminal revision plea filed by 3 accused.

Challenging the order, a writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution was preferred before the Supreme Court by a party not connected to the criminal proceedings. However, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale dismissed it on the grounds of locus.

Subsequently, based on a letter sent by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, on behalf of the NGO 'We the Women of India', the top Court took suo motu cognizance of the High Court ruling.

On March 26, a bench of Justices Gavai and Masih stayed the High Court order, while expressing strong disagreement with the view taken therein.

"We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned judgment, particularly paras 21, 24, and 26, depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment", the bench observed.

It was noted that the judgment was not dictated in the spur of the moment, but was delivered after reserving for nearly 4 months. This meant that the High Court judge delivered the verdict after due consideration and application of mind. Further, the observations were "totally unknown to the tenets of law and depict total insensitivity and inhuman approach", and as such, the Court was constrained to stay them.

Besides staying the High Court order, the Court issued notice to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the parties before the High Court. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared and denounced the judgment, saying that it was "shocking".

Case Title: JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE AND ANR. Versus AKASH AND ORS., Diary No. 15692-2025