Allahabad High Court Rules Grabbing Minor’s Breasts and Breaking Pyjama String Does Not Constitute Attempt to Rape

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court modified a summoning order and held that the acts of forcibly grabbing a minor’s breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing do not meet the legal threshold for the offence of rape or attempt to commit rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Modification of Charges

The High Court reviewed the charges originally framed against the two accused individuals under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act (punishment for attempt to commit an offence). Upon reconsideration, the Court ruled that the alleged acts, though grave, did not constitute an attempt to commit rape as they did not sufficiently establish an unequivocal intent to commit the offence of penetrative sexual assault.

Consequently, the High Court directed that the accused be tried under the lesser charges of:

• Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe a woman), and

• Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).

Judicial Observations

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, while delivering the judgment, observed:

"The allegations against the accused persons, Pawan and Akash, indicate that they grabbed the victim’s breasts, and that Akash attempted to pull down her lower garment by breaking its string, thereafter attempting to drag her beneath a culvert. However, the intervention of witnesses led to the accused fleeing the scene. These facts alone do not establish a conclusive inference that the accused had a resolute intent to commit rape, as no further acts were attributed to them to indicate an intention to proceed with the offence."

Case Background

According to the prosecution, the 11-year-old victim was allegedly accosted by the accused, who forcibly touched her inappropriately and attempted to undress her. The accused allegedly sought to drag her to a secluded area beneath a culvert but abandoned their attempt when passers-by intervened.

The trial court, considering these allegations, initially framed charges under Section 376 IPC along with Section 18 of the POCSO Act, concluding that the case amounted to an attempt to commit rape or attempted penetrative sexual assault. The accused then approached the High Court to challenge the summoning order.

Defense and Prosecution Arguments

• The accused’s counsel contended that even if the allegations in the complaint were accepted at face value, they did not amount to an offence under Section 376 IPC or attempt to commit rape under the POCSO Act. Instead, they argued that the case should be limited to Sections 354 and 354-B IPC, which criminalize acts of outraging a woman’s modesty and using criminal force with intent to disrobe.

• 
  

• The complainant’s counsel asserted that, at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is not required to meticulously assess the evidence but only to determine if a prima facie case exists.

Master the Secrets of Cross-Examination with an AOR, Supreme Court of India!

ILW presents a Short-Term Certificate Course on "The Art of Cross-Examination" In Collaboration with CMR University, Bangalore 

 Starts: 20th March 2025

Duration: 7 Days

Time: 7 PM Daily

Live + Recorded Lectures – Access anytime on ILW Institute App

📲 Secure Your Spot Now: https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/diploma-certificate-courses/into-legal-world-certificate-course-cross-examination-cmr-university-school-of-legal-studies-banglore-284705 

High Court’s Legal Analysis

The Court clarified that for an offence to qualify as attempt to commit rape, the prosecution must prove that the act progressed beyond mere preparation and that there was a greater degree of determination to commit the act. The absence of any allegations regarding further advances by the accused following the initial act led the Court to conclude that the offence of attempt to rape was not made out.

Additionally, the Court noted that:

• The complaint and witness statements did not indicate that the victim was fully undressed or left in a state of complete exposure due to the accused’s actions.

• There was no evidence to suggest that the accused made further advances towards penetrative assault following their initial act.

The Court observed:

"To establish an offence of attempt to rape, the prosecution must demonstrate that the act went beyond mere preparation. The distinction between preparation and an actual attempt to commit an offence lies in the degree of determination exhibited by the accused."

Final Decision

Based on the above findings, the High Court modified the summoning order and directed the trial court to issue fresh charges under the revised provisions. The accused will now face trial for assault with intent to disrobe and aggravated sexual assault, rather than attempt to commit rape.

Legal Representation

• Advocate Ajay Kumar Vashistha represented the accused.

• Advocate Indra Kumar Singh appeared for the complainant.

This ruling underscores the judicial interpretation of attempt to commit rape, reinforcing the principle that intent and the degree of progression of an act are crucial factors in distinguishing between different sexual offences under Indian law.