New Delhi, February 18 – The Supreme Court has overturned the controversial Allahabad High Court judgment that ruled that grabbing a minor’s breasts and breaking her pajama string did not constitute an attempt to rape.
In dismissing the case, which included the criminal appeals filed by two NGOs and the victim’s mother, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant held that the Allahabad High Court’s reasoning was based on a “fundamentally flawed application of established criminal law principles.”
The bench stated, “The actions of the accused clearly and unequivocally indicate that there is prima facie evidence of an attempt to commit rape, as alleged by the complainant and the prosecution.”
The case was initiated following a letter from Shobha Gupta, the founder-president of 'We the Women of India', highlighting the "insensitive and legally flawed" observations in the Allahabad High Court’s order issued in March of the previous year.
The Allahabad High Court had altered the charges against the two accused, who were originally charged with offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (rape) and Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
However, Justice Mishra ruled that the accused were liable to be charged with a lesser offence under Sections 354(b) of the IPC, which involves assault or abuse of a woman with the intent to disrobe or compel her to be naked, in conjunction with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act.
Disagreeing with this view, the Supreme Court cited its earlier ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra, emphasizing the distinction between "preparation" and "attempt" in criminal law.
The Supreme Court observed, “There is a clear distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’ to commit an offence. ‘Preparation’ involves deliberation, devising, or arranging the means necessary for the offence. An ‘attempt’ begins immediately after the preparation is complete.”
After examining the allegations, the Supreme Court found that the accused had allegedly taken the minor victim on a motorcycle under the pretext of dropping her home, stopped near a culvert, dragged her, committed sexually offensive acts, and fled only when witnesses arrived after hearing her screams.
The apex court stated, “A close examination of these allegations leaves no room for doubt that the accused intended to commit an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.”
It added that the crime was not carried further due to the intervention of third-party witnesses.
Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the original summons order dated June 23, 2023, issued by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj, and confirmed its earlier interim direction that the trial should proceed as if the accused had been summoned under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
At the same time, the CJI Surya Kant-led bench clarified that its observations were only from a prima facie perspective and “should not be taken as any opinion on the guilt of the accused, which is the subject of the ongoing trial.”
The Supreme Court also addressed a “broader issue” raised by the petitioners regarding judicial sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences and vulnerable victims. It requested the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, through its Director and former Supreme Court judge, Justice Aniruddha Bose, to constitute a committee of experts to prepare a comprehensive report on developing guidelines to infuse sensitivity and compassion into judicial processes dealing with sexual offences and other vulnerable cases.
The expert panel, to be chaired by Justice Bose and comprising four other domain experts, has been asked to examine past measures, assess their on-ground impact, and prepare "Draft Guidelines for the Approach of Judges and the Judicial System When Dealing with Cases of Sexual Offences and other Similarly Sensitive Occurrences Involving Vulnerable Victims, Complainants, and/or Witnesses."
“The primary beneficiaries of these guidelines are the victims/complainants, the majority of whom are children, women of tender age, and members of vulnerable sections of society,” the top court said, adding that the draft “will not be loaded with heavy, complicated expressions drawn from foreign languages and jurisdictions.”
The committee has been requested to submit its report within three months.
The Supreme Court clarified that the report, once received, would be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate instructions.
