New Delhi, March 26, 2025 – The Supreme Court has strongly criticized a ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which held that the act of grabbing a woman’s breast and pulling the string of her pyjama does not constitute the offence of rape. The apex court deemed the ruling "insensitive" and emphasized the judiciary’s responsibility in handling cases of sexual violence.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih took cognizance of the matter, with Justice Gavai expressing serious concern over the high court’s interpretation. He remarked, “It is a serious matter. Total insensitiveness on part of the judge. This was at the stage of issuing summons! We are sorry to use such harsh words against the judge.”
Justice Gavai also called on the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, as the master of rosters, to take appropriate corrective measures.
Allahabad High Court’s Ruling and Legal Debate
The Allahabad High Court, in a ruling dated March 17, had determined that while grabbing a woman’s breast and pulling the string of her pyjama are criminal acts, they do not meet the threshold for the offence of rape. The order was issued by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra in response to a revision petition filed by two accused individuals challenging an earlier order by a Special Judge in Kasganj, which had summoned them under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with other charges.
Legal experts have strongly condemned the high court’s interpretation, cautioning that such rulings undermine public confidence in the judiciary. They emphasized the need for judicial restraint in making statements that may dilute the gravity of sexual offences.
Case Background
According to case records, on November 10, 2021, the informant was returning home with her 14-year-old daughter from her sister-in-law’s house. The accused—Pawan, Akash, and Ashok—who belonged to the same village, approached them on a muddy road. Upon learning where she was coming from, Pawan offered to drop her daughter home on his motorcycle. Trusting his assurance, the mother permitted her daughter to accompany him.
However, the accused allegedly diverted from the route and stopped in an isolated area. It was then that they forcibly grabbed the girl’s breasts, and Akash attempted to take her beneath a culvert while pulling the string of her pyjama. The girl’s cries alerted two passersby, who intervened. The accused then brandished a country-made pistol, threatened the bystanders, and fled the scene.
Following statements from the victim and witnesses, the Special Judge (POCSO Act) summoned the accused for the offence of rape.
Court’s Justification for Downgrading Charges
After reviewing the evidence, the Allahabad High Court stated, “In the present case, the allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down the lower garment of the victim and for that purpose, they had broken the string of her lower garments and tried to drag her beneath the culvert, but due to the intervention of witnesses, they left the victim and fled away from the place of incident.”
The court ruled that these acts did not establish a clear determination to commit rape, as “apart from these facts, no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim.” It further noted, “There is no allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim.”
The judgment clarified that an attempt to commit rape requires evidence that goes beyond mere preparation and demonstrates a firm intent to carry out the crime. “The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination,” the court observed.
Consequently, the high court ruled that a prima facie charge of attempted rape was not substantiated against Pawan and Akash. Instead, they were liable to be summoned under Section 354(b) of the IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Section 9 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault on a child victim), which carry lesser penalties.
Supreme Court’s Response
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret sexual violence laws with due sensitivity and rigor. The court’s remarks reflect a broader concern over the need for survivor-centric judicial pronouncements.
The matter remains under scrutiny, with further legal proceedings anticipated.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.