SC: Grabbing Minor's Breasts, Untying Pyjama String is Attempt to Rape

In a significant development for child protection laws in India, the Supreme Court has unequivocally overturned a controversial judgment by the Allahabad High Court, ruling that acts such as grabbing a minor girl's breasts and attempting to loosen her pyjama string constitute an 'attempt to commit rape' rather than mere 'preparation'. The apex court found the High Court's interpretation of criminal law principles to be 'erroneous' and 'insensitive,' reinstating the more stringent charges against the accused. The Allahabad High Court, in its order dated March 17, 2025, had initially modified the summons issued by a Special Judge under Section 376 IPC (rape) read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The High Court had controversially held that the allegations of grabbing a minor girl's breasts and loosening the string of her pyjama did not amount to an attempt to commit rape, categorizing them instead as 'preparation' for the crime. Consequently, the charges were downgraded to lesser offenses under Section 354B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) read with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, which pertain to aggravated sexual assault or outraging modesty. The Supreme Court took *suo motu* (on its own motion) cognizance of this matter after the problematic Allahabad High Court judgment was brought to its attention by the NGO 'We the Women of India,' represented by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta. The initial reaction from the Supreme Court bench, which then included Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih, described the High Court's decision as 'shocking,' 'insensitive,' and displaying a 'total lack of sensitivity.' A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice NV Anjaria ultimately delivered the judgment on February 10, 2026, with news reports emerging around February 17-18, 2026. The apex court strongly disagreed with the Allahabad High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that an 'attempt' goes beyond mere 'preparation' and involves a clear execution of criminal intent. The Court noted that in the specific case, the accused did not carry out the full act of rape only due to the interference of third persons, which unequivocally transforms the acts from preparation into an attempt. The Supreme Court's ruling effectively restored the original summoning order issued by the Special Judge, ensuring that the accused would face trial under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act, which carries more severe penalties for an attempt to commit rape. The judgment is crucial as it clarifies a critical distinction in criminal jurisprudence regarding sexual offenses, reinforcing the robust protective framework of the POCSO Act against child sexual abuse. It underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal interpretations align with the legislative intent of safeguarding children and preventing diluted application of stringent laws. This decision is a landmark in India, reiterating the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding the integrity of laws designed to protect vulnerable sections of society, especially minors. It sends a clear message against any legal interpretation that might trivialize serious acts of sexual assault or attempt thereof. The widespread condemnation of the Allahabad High Court's initial ruling by legal experts and civil society organizations further highlighted the necessity of this intervention by the Supreme Court, ensuring that justice for child victims remains paramount and uncompromised. Earlier, in November 2021, the Supreme Court had similarly overturned a judgment by the Bombay High Court that required 'skin-to-skin contact' for an act to be considered 'sexual assault' under POCSO, emphasizing that 'sexual intent' is the most important ingredient. These rulings collectively demonstrate the Supreme Court's consistent effort to broaden the scope of protection for children under the POCSO Act and prevent narrow or pedantic interpretations that could undermine its objectives.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest