The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a writ petition that challenged the Allahabad High Court’s controversial ruling, which held that actions such as grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert do not fall under the category of rape or an attempt to rape.
The petition was filed by a third party unrelated to the criminal proceedings. However, the Supreme Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to challenge a High Court judgment. Instead, the appropriate legal route would have been to file a Special Leave Petition under Article 136.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the accused individuals, Pawan and Akash, physically assaulted an 11-year-old girl. One of them grabbed her breasts while the other broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her under a culvert. Considering this an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the trial court invoked Section 376 along with Section 18 (attempt to commit an offence) of the POCSO Act and issued a summoning order against the accused.
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Amends Rules: Single Judges to Hear Most Bail Applications
However, the Allahabad High Court modified the charges. Instead of the graver charge of attempted rape, the court directed that the accused be tried under the lesser charges of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). This ruling sparked widespread public outrage, with legal experts and child rights activists criticizing the perceived leniency of the judgment.
During the hearing before a bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale, an advocate attempted to argue by invoking the slogan "Beti Padhao, Beti Bachao." Justice Trivedi immediately interjected, stating, "No lecture baazi in the court." She further questioned the absence of the Advocate on Record (AOR) who had filed the writ petition.
When the advocate present in court responded that he had been authorized to argue in the AOR’s absence, Justice Trivedi expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s lack of presence. Following this, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Allahabad High Court’s ruling.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Rejects Ex-Serviceman's Plea on Havana Syndrome Allegations
A key legal aspect of the Allahabad High Court's judgment was the distinction between preparation and attempt to commit rape. The court held that the actions of the accused did not meet the legal threshold required for an attempt to commit rape.
"The allegations leveled 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," Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed while partly allowing the criminal revision plea filed by the accused.
This judgment has sparked significant debate within legal circles and the public domain. Many critics argue that such a ruling could set a dangerous precedent by allowing perpetrators of sexual violence to escape harsher punishments. Child rights activists believe that the Supreme Court should have intervened to ensure stricter accountability for sexual crimes against minors.
However, legal experts point out that courts must adhere to strict legal definitions and precedents when classifying offences. The distinction between preparation and attempt plays a crucial role in determining charges, as a higher degree of intent and direct action is required to prove an attempt to rape.
Case Details: ANJALE PATEL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|Diary No. 15118-2025
