Grabbing minor's breasts, breaking pyjama string not attempt to rape: Allahabad High Court

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

The Allahabad High Court recently modified a summoning order, ruling that actions such as grabbing a child victim's breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing do not constitute the offense of rape or attempt to rape.

Consequently, the Court altered the charges against the two accused, who were initially summoned to stand trial under Section 376 IPC (Rape) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act (Punishment for an attempt to commit an offense).

The High Court instead directed that the accused be tried under the lesser charge of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe), along with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).

While doing so, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed:

"...the allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down lower garment of the victim and for that purpose, they had broken string of her lower garments and tried to drag her beneath the culvert, but due to intervention of witnesses they left the victim and fled away from the place of incident. This fact is not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape on the victim as apart from these facts no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim."

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

This ruling has sparked significant debate regarding the interpretation of sexual assault laws and the threshold for constituting an attempt to rape. Critics argue that the intent and severity of the act should have warranted stronger charges, while others see this as a strict legal interpretation of the law.

What are your thoughts on this judgment? 🚨

Comments

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...

The Legal Catalyst

Search This Blog