Wednesday, Apr 16, 2025 10:00 [IST]
Last Update: Tuesday, Apr 15, 2025 16:57 [IST]
NEW DELHI, (IANS): The Supreme Court
on Tuesday expressed its concern over a bail order of the Allahabad High Court
where it had observed that the victim "herself had invited trouble"
and was also responsible for the alleged rape committed on her by the accused.
"There is another order
now by another judge. Yes, bail can be granted. But what is this discussion
that 'she herself invited trouble, etc'. One has to be careful when saying such
things," remarked a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih as it
dealt with the matter where it had suo moto (on its own motion) stayed the
Allahabad High Court judgment holding that grabbing breasts and breaking the
pyjama string was not enough for charge of attempt to rape.
The Justice Gavai-led Bench
said that it will hear the suo moto matter, including the plea of the victim’s
mother, after four weeks.
Staying the impugned part of
the Allahabad HC judgment, the apex court, on March 26, said that the
observations depicted a total lack of sensitivity and an inhumane approach on
the part of the author of the judgment.
"We have perused the said
judgment and order dated 17.03.2025. We are at pains to say that some of the
observations made in the impugned order and particularly in paragraphs 21, 24,
and 26 depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the
judgment," it said
"But since the
observations appearing in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 are totally unknown to the
cannons of law and depict a total insensitive and inhuman approach, we are
inclined to stay the said observations," it added.
The Supreme Court has
registered a suo moto case titled ‘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’ following a letter from senior advocate Shobha Gupta, who
urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to take cognisance of the observations
made by a single-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court while modifying a
summoning order.
In its decision, a bench of
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad HC altered the charges
against the two accused, who were originally summoned by the trial court for
commission of offences under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 18 (punishment
for attempt to commit an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act.
Partly allowing the revision
plea of the accused persons, Justice Mishra held that they are instead liable
to be summoned for a minor offence under Sections 354(b) IPC, i.e. assault or
abuse of a woman with intent to disrobing or compelling her to be naked, read
with Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution's
version, the two accused, namely Pawan and Akash, grabbed the breasts of the
victim, and one of them broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her
beneath the culvert.
However, on the intervention of
passersby/witnesses, the accused persons fled from the spot, leaving the victim
behind.
Saying that prima facie a
charge of attempt to rape was not made out against the accused persons, Justice
Mishra's bench said: "There is no allegation that the accused tried to
commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim. 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."
"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," it added.