Skip to main content

Supreme Court Reviews Allahabad High Court's Controversial "Grabbing minor's breasts, breaking pyjama string not attempt to rape"

In a landmark move, the Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognizance of a contentious judgment issued by the Allahabad High Court on March 17, 2025. The High Court's decision, which modified the charges against two accused in a case involving an alleged assault on an 11-year-old girl, has stirred public outrage and legal debate.

The Case and Its Backdrop

The case centers around two accused, Pawan and Akash, who allegedly assaulted a minor girl. According to the prosecution, the duo grabbed the victim's breasts, broke the string of her pyjama, and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert. Their actions were interrupted when passers-by intervened, forcing them to flee the scene.

The trial court initially invoked Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the offence of rape, and Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which pertains to attempted penetrative sexual assault. However, the Allahabad High Court altered the charges, directing 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).

High Court’s Observations and the Controversy

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, presiding over the case in the High Court, observed that the accused's actions did not amount to attempted rape. The judgment emphasized that there was insufficient evidence to infer that the accused were determined to commit rape, as no further acts beyond the initial assault were attributed to them.

This interpretation of the law sparked widespread criticism. Legal experts and child rights advocates have expressed concerns that the ruling could set a dangerous precedent, potentially minimizing the gravity of such heinous crimes.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

Recognizing the critical implications of the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih has taken suo motu action to review the matter. The case, titled "In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues," is expected to examine the broader legal and social ramifications of the High Court’s judgment.

Broader Legal Implications

This case has reignited debates surrounding the interpretation of laws related to sexual offences, particularly those involving minors. The distinction between sexual assault and attempted rape is critical, as it directly impacts the severity of charges and punishments imposed.

Many experts argue that cases involving children require a sensitive, victim-centered approach, where the intent of the accused is thoroughly scrutinized. The Supreme Court’s intervention may pave the way for clearer guidelines on handling such cases and reaffirm the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of vulnerable victims.

What Lies Ahead

As the Supreme Court begins its review, all eyes are on the apex judiciary to uphold justice and ensure that legal provisions are applied in a manner that prioritizes the protection and dignity of victims. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for India’s legal framework concerning sexual offences and child protection.

Stay tuned for updates!

Also read- Grabbing minor's breasts, breaking pyjama string not attempt to rape

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more