SC Sets Aside Controversial Allahabad HC Order, Says Loosening Pyjama String Is Attempt To Rape

The Supreme Court of India also emphasised the need for judges and members of the judiciary across the country to show greater sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences.

During the hearing, several lawyers requested the court to frame guidelines for the future.

Source : ANI

The Supreme Court has set aside a controversial judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in a case related to an alleged attempt to rape a minor girl. The High Court, in its March 17 ruling, stated that dragging the victim under a culvert, holding her breasts, and loosening the drawstring of her pyjamas would not amount to an attempt to rape.

While overturning the decision, the Supreme Court of India also emphasised the need for judges and members of the judiciary across the country to show greater sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences. The court further ordered the formation of an expert committee to make recommendations on the issue.

What Was The Allahabad High Court's Ruling?

In the case involving an 11-year-old girl, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the High Court had concluded that the incident constituted an affront to a woman’s dignity but could not be termed rape or an attempt to rape.

Justice Mishra had removed charges under Section 376 (rape), Section 18 (attempt to commit an offence) of the IPC, and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act against the two accused. Instead, he directed that proceedings continue under Section 354-B (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe a woman) and Section 9 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).

What Happened In Supreme Court?

Considering the far-reaching implications of the High Court judge’s findings and observations, social organisations urged the Supreme Court to take cognisance of the matter. Acting on these requests, the apex court initiated proceedings. At the beginning of the hearing itself, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s controversial order. It has now fully set it aside. As a result, the accused will now face trial for attempt to rape.

The order was written by Chief Justice Suryakant on behalf of a three-judge bench. The judgment states that preparation to commit an offence and an attempt to commit an offence are two distinct concepts. In this case, taking the 11-year-old girl on a motorcycle, dragging her from the road under a culvert, and sexually assaulting her could not be described merely as preparation for rape.

During the hearing, several lawyers requested the court to frame guidelines for the future. Instead of issuing direct guidelines, the judges referred the matter to an expert committee. The Supreme Court requested Justice Aniruddha Bose, Director of the National Judicial Academy (NJA) in Bhopal, to constitute and chair the committee. Apart from him, the panel will include four members who are legal experts, academicians, and social workers.

Mandate Of The Committee

The court directed the committee to:

• Frame guidelines to make judges and the judicial process more sensitive in cases of sexual offences.
• Study measures previously taken by courts or the government in this direction and assesses their impact. The committee should consult stakeholders at the ground level, including judges, lawyers, and social organisations and provide recommendations for the future.
• Ensure that the recommendations serve as guiding principles for judges and members of the judicial system. These should also outline steps to be taken in cases where the complainant, victim, or witness belongs to a vulnerable section of society.
• Prepare a list of objectionable words used in society that may fall within the category of offences. Given India’s linguistic diversity, such a list would help judges and members of the judiciary better understand the pain of victims while recording their statements.
• Keep in mind that the primary beneficiaries of its work are people from vulnerable sections of society, a large number of whom are women and children. Therefore, the draft guidelines should be written in simple language that can be easily understood by the general public, avoiding heavy technical or foreign terminology.