Introduction
In a highly controversial judgment that has stirred public outcry and legal debate, the Allahabad High Court ruled that certain acts committed by two accused men—grabbing a minor’s breasts and breaking the string of her pyjama—do not amount to rape or an attempt to rape but rather constitute aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The decision, delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, has since faced severe criticism from legal experts and civil society, leading to intervention by the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2021, when an 11-year-old girl was attacked in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh, by two men named Pawan and Akash. According to the prosecution, while the minor was walking with her mother, the accused offered her a lift on their bike. During the journey, they allegedly grabbed her breasts, broke the string of her pyjama, and attempted to drag her under a culvert. The attack was interrupted by passers-by, forcing the accused to flee.
Initially, the trial court summoned the accused on charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act. However, the Allahabad HC, in Akash v. State of U.P., modified the summoning order, ruling that their actions did not constitute rape or attempted rape. The court emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting the accused intended to commit penetrative sexual assault.
Judicial Reasoning and Legal Debate
The Allahabad High Court’s decision hinged on a nuanced interpretation of “attempt” in rape cases. Justice Mishra distinguished between “the preparation stage” and an “actual attempt” to commit rape. According to the order, for an act to qualify as an attempt, it must demonstrate a degree of determination beyond preliminary gestures.
Critics argue that this reasoning trivializes the severity of sexual exploitation of minors. Legal experts highlight that even preliminary acts of sexual violation have long-lasting psychological impacts. The distinction between rape and sexual assault is not merely semantic—it affects charges, legal provisions, and ultimately, the punishment.
Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Intervention
The controversy took a decisive turn when the Supreme Court intervened suo motu after the organization We the Women of India flagged the ruling. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih expressed deep concern over the “total lack of sensitivity” in the judgment.
The Supreme Court stayed the controversial observations and sought responses from the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the intervention, stating that certain judgments must be reevaluated when they conflict with child protection principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a critical moment in the legal battle over sexual offences against minors. By staying the High Court’s ruling, the apex court reaffirmed its commitment to protecting child victims. As the case evolves, the focus remains on balancing legal rigor with justice for the most vulnerable.
