Updated: 24th march,2025

The Allahabad High Court‘s ruling that grasping a young girl’s bosom, severing the thread of her pajamas, and making an effort to pull her under a culvert wouldn’t qualify as rape or an attempted rape was overturned by the Supreme Court of India today in a writ case. A party who has never heard of the criminal proceedings submitted the writ petition. Under Article 136, a Special Leave Petition must be submitted to the SC in order to contest a High Court order. Many rulings by the Supreme Court have found that a writ petition filed under Article 32 cannot be maintained against a High Court decision.

According to the prosecution, the 11-year-old victim’s bosom was grabbed by the accused, Pawan and Akash, who then snapped the thread of her pajamas and made an effort to pull her under the culvert. The concerned trial court invoked Section 376 and Section 18 (attempt to commit an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, deeming it an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault or rape, and issued a summons order in accordance with these provisions.

Nonetheless, the High Court mandated that the accused be tried in accordance with Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with purpose to disrobe) and Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act, which are minor charges. There was a great deal of debate surrounding the edict, and many people were against it.

The Advocate’s opening remarks before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale stated that the motto “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” exists. He was about to continue when Justice Bela interrupted, saying that “no lecture baazi” should be permitted in the courtroom. She also asked why the counsel who filed the writ petition was not in the courtroom and who his name was on file.

Although he was not there, the Advocate retorted that the AOR had given him permission to debate. After that, Justice Bela asked why the petitioner, who was also absent, was there. After that, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

The Union Government, the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare, and the Allahabad High Court were all cited as respondents in the case by the petitioner.

The High Court made a distinction in this case between preparation and attempt. According to the facts of the case and the accusations made against Pawan and Akash, the accused hardly ever attempted rape. To file a charge of attempted rape, the prosecution must prove that the case had progressed past the preparatory stage. As the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra partially granted the criminal revision petition made by three accused, it noted that the main distinction is that there is more determination between planning and actually attempting to conduct an offense.