In a sharp rebuke to judicial dilution of grave charges, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a ruling of the Allahabad High Court that had treated the alleged assault of an 11-year-old girl as mere “preparation” rather than an attempt to rape.
The top court called the High Court’s reasoning “patently erroneous,” restoring the original summons issued by the Special Judge under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. The earlier order had scaled down the charge to offences carrying significantly lighter consequences.
When ‘Preparation’ Crosses the Line
At the heart of the controversy lay a troubling set of allegations: two accused were said to have grabbed the child’s breasts, with one loosening the string of her pyjamas and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert. The assault, according to the complaint, was interrupted only because others rushed to the spot after hearing the child’s cries.
The High Court had reasoned that these acts did not travel beyond preparation. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Drawing from established criminal law principles — including its own ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra alias Golu — the bench clarified that an attempt begins where preparation ends, when intent translates into overt action aimed at committing the offence.
Here, the Court noted, the alleged conduct was not exploratory or incomplete in a legal vacuum. It was allegedly halted by external intervention — not by abandonment. That distinction mattered.
“The attempt made by the accused persons appears clearly,” the bench observed, concluding that a prima facie case of attempt to commit rape had indeed been disclosed.
A Suo Motu Course Correction
The judgment came in a suo motu proceeding initiated last year after the High Court’s order triggered widespread concern. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria delivered the verdict, firmly reasserting that courts must apply settled principles with precision, especially in cases involving child victims.
The original proceedings began with a complaint filed by the minor’s mother. Acting on an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Special Judge, POCSO, had summoned the accused under the more serious provisions — treating the allegations as constituting an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault.
That view now stands restored.
Law Is Not a Semantic Game
The ruling signals a clear message: criminal liability does not evaporate because a crime was thwarted mid-course. Where conduct demonstrates a determined move from intent to execution, the law must respond accordingly.
By rejecting the High Court’s narrower reading, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that in cases of sexual violence against children, doctrinal hair-splitting cannot override the gravity of the alleged acts.
