Synopsis
The Supreme Court will hear a suo moto case regarding an Allahabad HC ruling that deemed certain actions insufficient for an attempted rape charge. The court criticized the lack of sensitivity in the original judgment and called for further examination of the case.Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court is reviewing a controversial Allahabad HC ruling.
- Grabbing breasts and breaking a pyjama string was deemed insufficient for an attempted rape charge.
- The court criticized the insensitivity of the original judgment.
- Notices were issued to relevant parties, including the accused.
- The case involves the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
New Delhi, April 13 (NationPress) The Supreme Court is set to address a matter on Tuesday regarding its suo moto (on its own initiative) suspension of the Allahabad High Court ruling that stated grabbing breasts and breaking the pyjama string was insufficient for a charge of attempt to rape.
As indicated on the apex court’s website, a panel including Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih will continue to deliberate on this case, alongside the appeal from the victim’s mother, on April 15.
On March 26, the Justice Gavai-led panel stayed the contentious portion of the Allahabad HC ruling, stating that the comments indicated a complete lack of sensitivity and a cruel attitude from the judgment's author.
"After reviewing the judgment and order dated 17.03.2025, we regret to express that certain remarks found in the controversial order, particularly in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26, reflect a significant insensitivity from the judgment's author," the court remarked.
They added, "Because the observations in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 are alien to legal principles and reveal a profoundly insensitive and inhumane stance, we feel compelled to suspend those remarks."
The Justice Gavai-led panel noted that the disputed ruling was not made impulsively but was issued four months after the order was reserved.
The Supreme Court has dispatched notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government, and the involved parties before the Allahabad High Court, including the defendants.
It has requested the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in adjudicating the case.
The Supreme Court initiated a suo moto case titled ‘In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and related issues’ in response to a letter from senior advocate Shobha Gupta, who urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to consider the observations made by a single-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court while amending a summoning order.
In its ruling, a panel led by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad HC modified the charges against two defendants, who were originally summoned by the trial court for offenses under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 18 (punishment for attempt to commit an offense) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Partially allowing the revision request from the accused, Justice Mishra determined that they should be summoned for a lesser offense under Sections 354(b) IPC, which involves assault or abuse of a woman with the intent to disrobe or compel her to be naked, in conjunction with Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act.
Under the POCSO Act, Section 9 imposes penalties for aggravated sexual assault on a child victim, while Section 10 prescribes imprisonment for up to seven years, with a minimum of five years, alongside potential fines.
According to the prosecution's account, the two accused, identified as Pawan and Akash, grabbed the victim's breasts, and one of them broke her pyjama string while attempting to drag her under the culvert. However, they escaped the scene upon intervention from witnesses.
Stating that prima facie a charge of attempt to rape was not substantiated against the defendants, Justice Mishra's panel remarked: "There are no allegations indicating that the accused attempted penetrative sexual assault against the victim. The claims made against Pawan and Akash, along with the case's facts, barely satisfy the criteria for an attempt to rape charge."
"To establish an attempt to rape charge, the prosecution must prove that the act extended beyond mere preparation. The distinction between preparation and a genuine attempt to commit an offense primarily lies in the intensity of determination," they concluded.
