In a ruling, the Allahabad High Court has declared that grabbing a minor girl’s breasts, breaking her pyjama strings, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert does not constitute an attempt to rape. Instead, the court classified these actions as 'aggravated sexual assault,' leading to a modification of the charges against the accused.
The Case: A Disturbing Incident
The case revolves around an 11-year-old girl who was allegedly assaulted by two accused, Pawan and Akash. According to the prosecution, the accused grabbed the victim’s breasts, broke the string of her pyjama, and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert. However, the accused fled the scene when passersby intervened.
The trial court initially deemed the incident an attempt to rape and penetrative sexual assault under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The accused were summoned to face trial under these charges.
The High Court’s Ruling: A Shift in Charges
The Allahabad High Court, however, disagreed with the trial court’s interpretation. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, presiding over the case, ruled that the actions of the accused did not meet the threshold for an attempt to rape. Instead, the court modified the charges to Section 354(B) IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) and relevant sections of the POCSO Act, which deal with aggravated sexual assault.
The court emphasized that for an attempt to rape charge, the prosecution must prove that the accused had gone beyond the stage of preparation and demonstrated a clear intent to commit the offence. “The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination,” the bench observed.
Key Observations: Why Not Attempt to Rape?
The court noted several factors in its decision:
1. No Evidence of Intent to Rape: The court found no material on record to suggest that the accused had determined to rape the victim. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused had taken concrete steps toward committing rape.
2. No Penetrative Assault: The court highlighted that there was no allegation of penetrative sexual assault. The accused had not undressed themselves, nor had the victim been fully disrobed.
3. Witness Statements: Witnesses did not state that the victim was left naked or that the accused attempted to commit penetrative sexual assault. The specific allegation was that Akash broke the victim’s pyjama string and tried to drag her beneath the culvert.
Legal Implications: What Constitutes Attempt to Rape?
The ruling has sparked a debate on what constitutes an attempt to rape under Indian law. The court clarified that mere preparation, such as breaking a garment or attempting to drag a victim, does not amount to an attempt unless there is a clear demonstration of intent to commit rape.
This interpretation aligns with legal precedents that distinguish between preparation and attempt. However, the decision has raised concerns among activists and legal experts, who argue that such acts should be treated as attempts to rape, given the gravity of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim.
Revised Charges: Aggravated Sexual Assault
The court ruled that the accused should instead be tried under Section 354(B) IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force with the intent to disrobe, and Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, which classifies sexual assault on a child below twelve years as aggravated sexual assault.
Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act imposes stricter penalties for sexual assault on minors, particularly those under twelve years of age. The court’s decision to invoke this provision reflects the seriousness of the crime, even if it did not qualify as an attempt to rape.
Interestingly, the court’s order mentions the victim’s age as 14 years in one instance and older than 11 years in another. However, the invocation of Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act suggests that the court assumed the victim’s age to be between 11 and 12 years, as this provision specifically applies to children below twelve.
Court’s Final Directive
The Allahabad High Court directed the trial court to issue a fresh summoning order under the modified charges. The accused will now face trial for aggravated sexual assault rather than attempt to rape.
Public Reaction: Outrage and Debate
The ruling has sparked outrage among women’s rights activists and child protection advocates, who argue that the decision undermines the severity of the crime. Many believe that acts such as grabbing a minor’s breasts and breaking her clothing should be treated as attempts to rape, given the traumatic impact on the victim.
Legal experts, however, have pointed out that the court’s decision is based on a strict interpretation of the law. They emphasize that while the acts are reprehensible, they must meet specific legal criteria to qualify as an attempt to rape.
A Landmark Ruling with Far-Reaching Consequences
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Akash And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. has set a precedent for how similar cases may be adjudicated in the future. While the court’s decision to classify the acts as aggravated sexual assault ensures that the accused will face legal consequences, the ruling has ignited a broader debate on the interpretation of sexual assault laws in India.
As the case moves forward, it remains to be seen whether this ruling will lead to legislative changes or stricter guidelines for prosecuting sexual offences against minors.
Case Title: Akash And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Date of Judgment: March 19, 2025
Post a Comment