Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court modified the charges against two accused individuals in a case involving allegations of sexual assault against a minor. The case, titled Akash And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, initially involved charges under Section 376 of the IPC (rape) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act (attempt to commit an offence). However, after reviewing the evidence, the High Court ruled that the allegations did not constitute an attempt to rape. Instead, the Court directed that the accused be tried under the lesser charge of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) read with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).

The case arose from an incident where the accused, Pawan and Akash, were alleged to have grabbed the breasts of an 11-year-old girl, broken the string of her pyjama, and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing the scene due to the intervention of bystanders. The trial court, based on the complaint and statements of witnesses, initially summoned the accused under stringent sections of the law, believing that the facts suggested an attempt to commit rape or penetrative sexual assault. However, the accused challenged the summoning order before the High Court, arguing that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not meet the legal threshold for an attempt to rape.

Arguments:

The petitioners contended that the difference between preparation and an actual attempt to commit rape is significant, requiring the prosecution to establish that the accused had gone beyond preparation and had a clear determination to commit the offence. They argued that their actions, while serious, did not reach the level of an attempt to rape under the IPC or POCSO Act. They maintained that at best, the allegations constituted offences under Sections 354 and 354-B of the IPC, which deal with assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to disrobe, along with the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.

On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by the counsel for respondent No.2, asserted that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is not required to scrutinize evidence meticulously. Instead, it must only determine whether a prima facie case exists to put the accused on trial. The prosecution maintained that the facts presented in the complaint were sufficient to invoke the charge of attempt to rape and that the trial court had rightly framed the charges under Sections 376 IPC and 18 of the POCSO Act.

Judgement:

After hearing both sides, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court examined the case in detail. The Court observed that there was no material on record to conclude that the accused had a clear determination to commit rape. It noted that while Akash allegedly broke the string of the victim’s pyjama and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert, there was no explicit statement in the complaint or witness testimonies suggesting that the accused had attempted to commit penetrative sexual assault. The Court emphasized that for an offence to qualify as an attempt to rape, the accused must have moved beyond preparation and taken a definitive step toward executing the act. In this case, the evidence did not support such a conclusion.

Further, the Court pointed out that there was no allegation in the complaint that the victim became naked or undressed due to the accused’s actions. It also noted that the intervention of bystanders led the accused to flee, preventing any further escalation of the incident. Given these findings, the High Court concluded that the trial court had erred in invoking the stringent provisions of Section 376 IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

Consequently, the High Court modified the charges and directed that the accused be tried under Section 354-B IPC, which deals with assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe a woman, along with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act, which pertain to aggravated sexual assault on a child below twelve years of age. The Court further directed the lower court to issue a fresh summoning order on these modified charges.

This ruling highlights the importance of carefully distinguishing between different levels of sexual offences under the law. While the accused were not absolved of liability, the Court ensured that the charges reflected the exact nature of the alleged crime, preventing the misuse of stringent legal provisions where they were not applicable. The decision underscores the necessity of establishing a clear threshold between preparation and attempt in cases of sexual offences, ensuring that legal proceedings remain fair and proportionate.