“Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Allahabad HC Order Holding Grabbing Breasts and Breaking Pyjama String Does Not Constitute Attempt to Rape”
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had modified charges in a criminal case involving allegations of sexual assault on a minor. A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale found the petition non-maintainable, stating that the proper remedy to challenge a High Court decision lies under Article 136 through a Special Leave Petition.
The petition was filed by a party who was not connected to the original criminal proceedings. The petitioner had named the Union of India, the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare, and the Allahabad High Court as respondents. At the outset of the hearing, the advocate appearing for the petitioner began with a reference to the slogan “beti padhao, beti bachao,” prompting Justice Trivedi to state, “No lecture baazi in Court.”
The bench questioned the absence of both the petitioner and the Advocate-on-Record (AOR). The appearing counsel stated that he had been authorised to argue the case, but the AOR was not present. On noting these procedural aspects, the Court dismissed the matter without issuing notice.
The petition challenged an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a criminal revision filed by three accused, including two individuals named Pawan and Akash. According to the prosecution, both accused “grabbed the breasts of the victim and one of them, namely Akash, broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her beneath the culvert.” The victim was 11 years old at the time of the incident.
The Trial Court had taken cognizance under Section 376 read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, treating the incident as an attempt to commit rape or penetrative sexual assault. Summons were issued under these provisions.
In its order, the High Court held that the allegations did not constitute an attempt to rape. It recorded, “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.” It further stated, “In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination.”
Accordingly, the High Court directed that the accused be tried under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning assault or criminal force with intent to disrobe, along with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, relating to aggravated sexual assault and punishment.
The Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the High Court's order, noting only that Article 32 cannot be invoked to challenge a judgment passed by a High Court. The petition was dismissed in open court.
Case Title: Anjale Patel v. Union of India and Others
Diary No.: 15118-2025
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
