The Supreme Court docket has put aside the controversial judgment of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket which had held that allegations of grabbing a minor lady’s breast and loosening the string of her pyjama didn’t quantity to an try to commit rape, however solely to “preparation”.
Holding that the Excessive Court docket misapplied settled felony regulation ideas, the Supreme Court docket restored the unique summons issued by the Particular Decide below Part 376 IPC learn with Part 18 of the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences Act.
Noting that it was solely because of the interference of third individuals that the accused didn’t commit rape, the Court docket held that the acts weren’t mere ‘preparation’ however ‘try’.
“The info alleged being so, we can’t agree with the discovering of the Excessive Court docket that the allegations solely quantity to preparation, however not an try, in the direction of the fee of the offence of rape. The try made by the accused individuals seems clearly and inevitably leads us to conclude that, prima facie, a case for invoking the provisions of try to commit rape has been made out by the complainant and the prosecution. The impugned judgment, thus, is liable to be put aside on account of the patently inaccurate utility of the settled ideas of felony jurisprudence.”
A 3-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria delivered the judgment in a suo motu case taken final yr over the Excessive Court docket’s problematic judgment.
Background
The case stemmed from a criticism filed by the mom of a minor lady. Appearing on an utility below Part 156(3) CrPC, the Particular Decide, POCSO, Kasganj, had issued summons to 2 accused below Part 376 IPC learn with Part 18 of the POCSO Act.
Nonetheless, the Allahabad Excessive Court docket modified the summons order. It held that the factual allegations didn’t disclose an try to commit rape and altered the costs to Part 354B IPC learn with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, which carry comparatively lesser punishment.
The Excessive Court docket reasoned that the acts alleged in opposition to the accused constituted solely “preparation” and didn’t cross the brink into “try”.
Supreme Court docket On ‘Preparation’ Vs ‘Try’
The Supreme Court docket remarked that the Excessive Court docket’s order is liable to be put aside because of the “patently inaccurate” utility of settled ideas of felony jurisprudence.
That is so as a result of the Excessive Court docket modified the summoning order and directed that the accused be tried below the minor cost of Part 354B IPC (assault or use of felony drive with intent to disrobe) learn with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). The modification was accomplished on the grounds that there’s a distinction between preparation and try and this case felt with the previous.
It’s the case of the prosecution that the accused individuals, Pawan and Akash, grabbed the breasts of the 11-year-old sufferer and one among them, particularly Akash, broke the string of her pyjama and tried to tug her beneath the culvert.
Discovering it to be a case of try to rape or try to commit penetrative sexual assault throughout the purview of the POCSO, the involved trial court docket invoked Part 376 with Part 18 (try to commit an offence) of the POCSO Act and issued a summoning order below these sections.
“The allegations levelled in opposition to the accused Pawan and Akash and info of the case hardly represent an offence of try to rape within the case. With the intention to carry out a cost of try to rape the prosecution should set up that it had gone past the stage of preparation. The distinction between preparation and precise try to commit an offence consists mainly within the better diploma of willpower,” Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Excessive Court docket noticed because it partly allowed the felony revision plea filed by 3 accused.
Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra alias Golu(2022), authored by CJI Kant(J Kant then), the bench defined the distinction between preparation and try. It stated that an try is an execution of mens rea after preparation.
Contemplating this, the bench acknowledged that the accused individuals had solely stopped the crime when witnesses reached the crime spot because of the shrieks of the minor. That is proof of the truth that the accused individuals had proceeded with a “pre-determined” intent try to commit rape.
“A naked perusal of those allegations leaves no modicum of doubt that the case sought to be made out is that the accused individuals proceeded with a pre-determined intent to commit an offence below Part 376 of the IPC on her. In gentle of the overt averments recorded within the Prison Software filed by the complainant-mother below Part 156(3) of the Code of Prison Process, 1973, it turns into readily obvious that,from the story of the complainant, the mens rea concerned had begun to be executed. This understanding is bolstered by the Excessive Court docket’s personal recording that the one cause why the crime was not furthered was the above-mentioned intervention by third-party witnesses,” the bench noticed.
As a consequence, the summoning order of the Trial Court docket was restored. It additionally confirmed paragraph 5 of the interim order dated December 8, 2025, by which it was acknowledged that the trial should proceed with the unique summoning order solely with none prejudice to both aspect. Moreover, the bench clarified that any statement shouldn’t be thought of as any opinion furnished on the guilt of the accused individuals.
Background
It might be famous {that a} bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice AG Masih had stayed paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 of the order final yr on March 26, after initiating a suo motu case in opposition to the Excessive Court docket’s order. The bench had expressed its robust disagreement with the Excessive Court docket’s view and had termed the choice as “stunning” and “insensitive”.
Subsequently, on December 8, 2025, the Court docket stayed the entire judgment with an interim clarification that if the trial proceeds, it should proceed on premise that accused individuals have been summoned to face trial below Part 376 together with Part 511 IPC together with Part 18 of POCSO.
