Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, April 15, 2025, took strong exception to the observations made by the Allahabad High Court, in a case where it had granted bail to a man accused of rape while noting that the victim, being an adult and educated, had "invited trouble" upon herself.

While taking note of the sensitivity required in such cases, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih emphasised that judges need to be cautious while dealing with cases involving sexual violence against women.

Notably, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court while allowing bail to the accused remarked that even if the woman’s allegations were accepted as true, it could still be concluded that she was also responsible for the incident.

In view of this, Justice Gavai remarked, “If one wants to grant bail, it should be granted. But why make observations like she invited all this trouble and so on?”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisting the Court, remarked, "Justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. This applies both ways, how a common man, who may not be aware of legal nuances, perceives such observations."

The case pertained to an FIR on September 23, 2024, where the victim alleged that accused raped her two days earlier after she became intoxicated at a bar and was taken to a relative’s flat. She stated that she was too intoxicated to resist and had gone along with him believing they were heading to his house so she could rest. Instead, he allegedly raped her twice.

These observations came during the hearing of a suo motu case initiated in the context of another controversial ruling by the Allahabad High Court, where it held that the act of grabbing a minor’s breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing, did not amount to rape or even an attempt to rape.

On 26 March,  the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government and the Uttar Pradesh government in the suo motu proceedings while staying the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court. 

The ruling sparked widespread criticism. It was delivered on March 17, 2025, by a single-judge bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra while modifying a trial court’s summoning order against two accused, Pawan and Akash.

According to the prosecution case, the accused had allegedly assaulted an 11-year-old girl, with Akash breaking the string of her lower garment and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert. However, the assault was interrupted by passersby, causing the accused to flee.

The trial court, treating the incident as an attempt to rape or an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, had issued a summoning order invoking Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 18 (Attempt to Commit Offence) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act.

However, the High Court altered the charges, directing that they be tried under Section 354-B IPC (Assault or Use of Criminal Force with Intent to Disrobe) read with Sections 9/10 (Aggravated Sexual Assault) of the POCSO Act.

“In the present case, 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 victim as apart from these facts no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim,” observed the high court.

The high court noted that the specific allegation against one of the accused was that he attempted to drag the victim beneath the culvert and broke the string of her pyjama. However, it found that there was no statement from witnesses indicating that this act resulted in the victim becoming naked or undressed. “There is no allegation that accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim,” the high court further remarked.

It also clarified that for a charge of attempt to rape to be established, the prosecution must demonstrate that the act went beyond mere preparation. However, in this case, such evidence was not presented. “The allegations levelled against the accused Pawan and Akash and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case,” the high court ruled.

Based on these findings, the high court held that “prima facie charge attempt to rape was not made out against the accused Pawan and Akash and instead they were liable to be summoned for minor charge.”

Consequently, the trial court was directed to issue a fresh summoning order under the modified sections.

Case Title: 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