The Supreme Court on Wednesday put a stay on the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, which stated that grabbing a minor girl’s breasts, breaking her pyjama string and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of rape or an attempt to rape.
A bench headed by Justice BR Gavai said it is a serious matter and shows insensitivity on the part of the judge who passed the judgment.
Supreme Court said, “We are at pains to state that it shows total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment.”
Also Read: 'Grabbing breasts, breaking string of pyjama not attempt of rape': Allahabad High Court
"It was not even at the spur of the moment and was delivered 4 months after reserving the same. Thus there was application of mind. We are usually hesitant to grant stay at this stage. But since observations in para 21,24 and 26 is unknown to cannons of law and shows inhuman approach. We stay the observations in said paras,” Bar and Bench reported quoting the court's order.
The top court had registered a suo motu case in this regard on Tuesday on the basis of a letter by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta.
What was Allahabad HC's ruling?
The Allahabad High Court’s statement was made in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case concerning the alleged rape of a minor girl in Kasganj.
The HC ruled that grabbing the victim’s breasts and snapping her pyjama strings did not amount to rape or attempted rape but constituted serious sexual assault.
Also Read: Supreme Court takes suo moto cognisance of Allahabad HC’s ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’ order
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who delivered the judgment, stated that after reviewing the facts of the incident involving an 11-year-old girl, it was an assault on a woman’s dignity but could not be classified as an attempt to rape.
The court said, “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 HC bench made this observation while partly allowing the revision petition filed by two accused persons challenging the order of the lower court which had summoned them to face trial for charge under Sections 376 IPC (attempt to rape) read with Section 18 of POCSO Act.
What was the case about?
An application was filed before the Special Judge, Pocso Act, alleging that on November 10, 2021, at around 5:00 pm, the complainant was returning home with her 14-year-old daughter from her sister-in-law’s house.
On the way, three men from her village, Pawan, Akash, and Ashok, met her on a muddy road and asked where she was coming from. When she mentioned she was returning from her sister-in-law’s house, Pawan offered to drop her daughter home on his motorcycle.
Trusting his assurance, she allowed her daughter to go with him.
However, the accused stopped the motorcycle on the way to her village. They began grabbing the girl’s breasts, and Akash attempted to drag her beneath a culvert while pulling the string of her pyjama.
Two people arrived at the scene after hearing the girl’s cries. The accused then waved a country-made pistol, threatened them, and fled. Based on the statements of the victim and witnesses, the court initially summoned the accused on charges of rape.
The court ruled that these actions alone were insufficient to establish that the accused were determined to commit rape, as no further steps were taken to “further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim”.
In its order dated March 17, the court further observed that the main allegation against Akash was that he attempted to drag the victim beneath the culvert and pulled the string of her pyjama. However, the witnesses did not state that the act resulted in the victim being undressed or naked.
“There is no allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim,” it said.
It ruled that the allegations against Pawan and Akash, along with the facts of the case, did not amount to an attempt to rape. The prosecution was required to prove that the act had progressed beyond mere preparation to establish such a charge.
It concluded that, based on the case facts, “prima facie charge attempt to rape is not made out against the accused Pawan and Akash and instead they are liable to be summoned for a minor charge of Section 354(b) IPC i.e. assault or abuse a woman with intent to disrobing or compelling her to be naked and Section 9 of POCSO Act provides punishment for aggravated sexual assault on a child victim.”
(With inputs from agencies)
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
