The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court which had modified a summoning order against accused persons from “attempt to rape” to a lesser charge of “assault with intent to disrobe.” The Apex Court held that the High Court erred in treating the alleged acts merely as “preparation” rather than an “attempt” to commit the offence.
Simultaneously, acknowledging the need to foster compassion within the judicial system, the Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice N.V. Anjaria constituted a Committee of Experts headed by former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Aniruddha Bose, to frame guidelines for inculcating sensitivity in judges dealing with cases involving sexual offences.
Background of the Case
The proceedings originated as a Suo Motu Writ Petition based on a letter dated March 20, 2025, from the organisation ‘We the Women of India’, through its Founder President, Senior Advocate Ms. Shobha Gupta. The letter highlighted a judgment dated March 17, 2025, passed by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024.
In the underlying case (Complaint Case No. 23/2022), the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj, had issued summons to two accused persons under Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). However, the High Court modified this order, revising the charge to Section 354B of the IPC (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) read with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
The High Court had reasoned that a prima facie view of the alleged facts—specifically regarding the accused’s attempt to disrobe the victim—did not make out a case for “attempt to commit rape,” but rather indicated only “preparation.”
The Supreme Court also heard connected appeals filed by an NGO and the complainant (the mother of the minor victim) challenging the same High Court order.
Submissions of the Parties
Senior Advocates Ms. Shobha Gupta and Mr. H.S. Phoolka, representing the petitioners and the complainant, argued that the observations made and reasoning adopted by the High Court were “erroneous in law, insensitive, irresponsible, and likely to demoralise all efforts towards protecting women and other vulnerable persons from sexual offences.”
The Court noted that despite service of notice, the accused persons did not enter an appearance. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur.
Court’s Analysis: Preparation vs. Attempt
The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the actions of the accused amounted to “preparation” or an “attempt” to commit rape.
Justice Surya Kant, authoring the judgment, referred to the distinction explained in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra alias Golu (2022), reiterating that while preparation consists of devising means, an attempt is the “execution of mens rea” that starts where preparation ends.
The Court examined the factual allegations: the accused took the minor victim on a motorcycle, stopped near a culvert, dragged her towards it, and committed sexually offensive acts (attempting to disrobe). The act was interrupted only because witnesses reached the spot upon hearing the victim’s shrieks.
Rejecting the High Court’s view, the Supreme Court observed:
“A bare perusal of these allegations leaves no modicum of doubt that the case sought to be made out is that the accused persons proceeded with a pre-determined intent to commit an offence under Section 376 of the IPC on her… it becomes readily apparent that, from the story of the complainant, the mens rea involved had begun to be executed.”
The Bench held that the High Court’s finding that the allegations amounted only to preparation was liable to be set aside due to a “patently erroneous application of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.”
Decision and Directions
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment dated March 17, 2025. It restored the original summons order dated June 23, 2023, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj, clarifying that the trial shall proceed as if summons had been issued under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
Constitution of Committee for Judicial Sensitivity
Addressing the broader issue raised by the counsel regarding “impassive judicial decisions” and the lack of empathy in handling sexual offence cases, the Court observed:
“No judge or judgment of any court can be expected to do complete justice when it is inconsiderate towards the factual realities of a litigant… Our decisions… must reflect the ethos of compassion, humanity, and understanding.”
To address this, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a Committee of Experts to prepare a report on ‘Developing Guidelines to Inculcate Sensitivity and Compassion into Judges and Judicial Processes in the Context of Sexual Offences and other Vulnerable Cases’.
Key Directions Regarding the Committee:
- Composition: The Committee will be presided over by Justice Aniruddha Bose (Former Judge, Supreme Court) as Chairperson, with four other domain experts to be appointed by him.
- Mandate: To review previous measures and prepare comprehensive ‘Draft Guidelines’ for the approach of judges and the judicial system in sensitive cases.
- Linguistic Sensitivity: The Committee is requested to identify and compile offensive words and expressions used in local dialects regarding sexual offences so that they do not go unnoticed.
- Accessibility: The guidelines should be in simple language comprehensible to laypersons, avoiding heavy foreign legal expressions.
- Timeline: The Committee is requested to submit its report preferably within three months.
The Registry was directed to place the report before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side upon its receipt.
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 (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1/2025 with connected Criminal Appeals)
