The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order of March 17, which concluded that “mere” grabbing the breasts of a minor victim; and, breaking the string of her pajama to “bring down” her lower garment are not sufficient to constitute an offense of attempt to rape.
Thus, Supreme Court stays ‘insensitive, inhuman’ remarks by Allahabad High Court on rape.
Justice Gavai pointed out that certain paragraphs of the order, which graphically recounted the trauma endured by the minor victim at the hands of the two accused persons, only to conclude their actions did not show any determination on the part of duo to rape her showed a “complete lack of sensitivity”.
The Supreme Court was assisted by Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who urged the Bench to examine the suo motu case with great care.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 26, 2025) stayed an Allahabad High Court order of March 17, which concluded that “mere” grabbing the breasts of a minor victim, breaking the string of her pyjama to “bring down” her lower garment are not sufficient to constitute an offence of attempt to rape.
A day after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the order, a Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai said the observations made by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the High Court was “totally insensitive, inhuman” and “unknown to the tenets of law”.
“Lack of sensitivity”
The Supreme Court stayed the controversial order of the Allahabad high court and said the judgment showed a “lack of sensitivity”.
The controversial order had observed that acts like grabbing breasts or breaking the string of pyjamas do not constitute an attempt to rape, and the prosecution must go beyond this “stage of preparation” to prove its charges against a rape accused. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the case after an organization ‘We the Women of India’ approached the apex court against the March 17 order of the Allahabad high court.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih said the judgment showed a “lack of sensitivity” on the part of the high court judge.
“We are in pains to state that it shows a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment. It was not even at the spur of the moment and was delivered 4 months after reserving the same. Thus, there was an application of mind. We are usually hesitant to grant a 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, citing the court’s order.
The apex court also sought a response from the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government and also sought the assistance of solicitor general Tushar Mehta and attorney general R Venkataramani. Collegium is to meet HC judge amid row over controversial remarks.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed the controversial order while allowing the accused’s criminal revision plea. The high court had directed that the accused be tried under Section 354-B of the IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) with Sections 9/10 of the Pocso Act (aggravated sexual assault).
The assault took place on November 10, 2021 when the accused offered to drop the victim at her home by taking her on their motorcycle. Her father trusted their assurance and allowed the victim to go with them.
On their way, the three accused stopped their ride and began sexually assaulting the girl. The prosecution charged that the accused grabbed the breasts of an 11-year-old victim, and one of them broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her beneath the culvert in UP’s Kasganj. Due to the interference of passersby/witnesses, the accused persons fled from the spot, leaving the victim behind.
The 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 the case. To bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation.”
The judge ruled that such actions were insufficient to establish that the accused intended to commit rape as they did not commit further steps in their attempt. The order also noted that the witnesses did not state that the actions of the accused left the victim naked or undressed.
Educationist/Administrator/Editor/Author/Speaker
Commencing teaching in his early twenties, Prof Aggarwal has diverse experience of great tenure in the top institutions not only as an educationist, administrator, editor, author but also promoting youth and its achievements through the nicest possible content framing. A revolutionary to the core, he is also keen to address the society around him for its betterment and growth on positive notes while imbibing the true team spirit the work force along with.
Comments