The Supreme Court has stayed the contentious ruling of the Allahabad High Court, which had held that "grabbing breasts and breaking the pyjama string" of a minor was insufficient to constitute an offence of rape or attempt to rape. A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih expressed strong disapproval of the High Court's reasoning, observing that it exhibited "total insensitivity" in handling the matter.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court stated in unequivocal terms that the observations made in the impugned judgment, particularly in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26, "depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment." The bench further noted, "Since the observations made in para 24, 25, 26 are not tenable in law and depict insensitivity, we are inclined to stay the observation."
Expressing deep concern over the High Court's rationale, the Supreme Court remarked that the judgment was not passed on the spur of the moment but was delivered after being reserved for nearly four months, implying a conscious application of judicial mind. The apex court observed that some of the conclusions in the High Court’s ruling were "totally unknown to the tenets of law and depict total insensitivity and inhuman approach."
Taking suo motu cognisance of the matter following nationwide criticism of the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties involved. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before the bench and unequivocally denounced the High Court’s order, terming it "shocking."
The suo motu proceedings were initiated following a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta on behalf of the NGO ‘We the Women of India.’ The letter urged judicial intervention, highlighting the disturbing precedent the High Court’s ruling could set.
The case pertained to an incident involving two accused, Pawan and Akash, who allegedly grabbed the breasts of an 11-year-old girl and attempted to drag her under a culvert. According to the prosecution, one of the accused, Akash, broke the string of the victim’s pyjama while assaulting her. The trial court had invoked Section 376 IPC (rape) along with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, considering the allegations as an attempt to commit rape or penetrative sexual assault.
However, in a controversial ruling, the Allahabad High Court modified the charges, holding that the acts of the accused did not constitute an attempt to rape. Instead, the court ruled that the offences fell under the lesser charge of aggravated sexual assault under Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act. The High Court observed, “The allegations levelled against the accused Pawan and Akash and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape. 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.”
The court further reasoned, "The specific allegation against Akash is that he tried to drag the victim beneath the culvert and broke the string of her pyjama. It is also not stated by witnesses that due to this act of the accused, the victim got naked or got undressed. There is no allegation that accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim."
The High Court’s ruling sparked widespread public outrage and concern within the legal fraternity. Legal experts condemned the court’s reasoning as overly narrow and failing to account for the gravity of sexual violence, especially against minors. Women's rights groups, activists, and senior legal professionals emphasized that such judicial interpretations could weaken protections under POCSO and IPC.
Following the backlash, the Supreme Court’s intervention was widely anticipated. The apex court's strong language in staying the High Court's ruling reflects the gravity of the issue and the necessity to uphold the legal safeguards for victims of sexual offences.
With the Supreme Court staying the impugned observations, further proceedings will determine the legal standing of the charges against the accused. The Court has sought responses from the Union government and the Uttar Pradesh administration to address concerns arising from the High Court’s interpretation of attempt to rape under IPC and POCSO.
The case will now proceed with a detailed hearing on the appropriateness of the High Court's reasoning and the larger legal implications it carries.
Picture Source :
