Allahabad- In a controversial judgement that has ignited a firestorm of debate, the Allahabad High Court ruled that groping a minor’s breasts and breaking her salwar string does not constitute an attempt to rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The court’s decision to downgrade the charges to a lesser offense has drawn sharp criticism from activists, legal experts, and the public, who argue that it undermines the severity of sexual assault and fails to protect vulnerable victims.

The Incident: A Harrowing Tale of Assault

The case dates back to November 10, 2021, in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh. A 14-year-old girl and her mother were returning home from a relative’s house when they were stopped by three men—Pawan, Akash, and Ashok. Pawan, a co-villager, offered the girl a lift on his motorcycle, assuring her mother that he would drop her home safely. Trusting his words, the mother allowed her daughter to accompany him.

However, instead of taking her home, Pawan and Akash allegedly stopped the motorcycle near a culvert, grabbed the girl’s breasts, and attempted to drag her beneath the culvert. Akash broke the string of her salwar (lower garment), but the assault was interrupted when two witnesses, Satish and Bhurey, arrived at the scene. The accused allegedly threatened the witnesses with a country-made pistol and fled.

The victim’s mother filed a police complaint the next day, but no action was taken. She then approached the court, which summoned the accused under Sections 376 (rape) and 18 of the POCSO Act (attempt to commit rape) for Pawan and Akash, and Sections 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) for Ashok.

Court’s Ruling: A Narrow Interpretation of Attempt to Rape

The Allahabad High Court, while hearing the revision petition filed by the accused, delivered a judgement that has since sparked widespread outrage. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the acts of groping the victim’s breasts and breaking her salwar string did not amount to an attempt to rape. The court stated:

“For an offense to be classified as an attempt to rape, there must be a clear intention to commit penetrative sexual assault, which was not established in this case. The accused’s actions, while reprehensible, do not indicate a determination to commit rape at all costs.”

The court further noted that the accused and the victim’s family had a prior enmity, which raised doubts about the motive behind the complaint. Justice Mishra remarked:

“The revisionists are closely related family members, and the commission of such an incident by them does not appear natural. The possibility of false implication due to prior enmity cannot be ruled out.”

Instead of attempted rape, the court ruled that the accused should be charged under Section 354(b) of the IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe a woman) and Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). These sections carry a lesser punishment compared to attempted rape.

Justice Mishra’s Key Observations

• No Evidence of Penetrative Intent: The court emphasized that there was no allegation or evidence that the accused attempted to commit penetrative sexual assault. The act of breaking the salwar string and groping the victim’s breasts, while inappropriate, did not meet the legal threshold for attempted rape.

• Prior Enmity Between Families: Justice Mishra highlighted that the accused and the victim’s family had a history of conflict. The mother of one of the accused had previously filed a police complaint against the victim’s family, suggesting that the current case might be a “counter-blast” to that earlier complaint.

• Witness Intervention: The court noted that the accused fled the scene when witnesses arrived, which indicated that they did not have the determination to complete the act of rape.

• Legal Precedents: The judgement cited several legal precedents, including the case of Rex v. James Lloyd and Express v. Shankar, to argue that an attempt to rape requires a clear and determined intention to commit the act, regardless of resistance.

Public Outrage: A Backlash Against the Judgement

The court’s decision has been met with widespread criticism. Activists and legal experts argue that the ruling undermines the severity of sexual assault and fails to protect minors, who are particularly vulnerable. Many have pointed out that the POCSO Act was enacted to ensure stringent punishment for crimes against children, and the court’s interpretation appears to dilute its provisions.

Speaking with The Mooknayak, Chennai based activist, feminist and author Shalin Maria Lawrence stated:

" Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra’s ruling that groping a minor girl’s breasts and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert isn’t an attempt to rape reeks of an upper-caste patriarchal mindset that diminishes the trauma of sexual violence. This Allahabad High Court decision on March 17, exposes a troubling disconnect from the lived realities of vulnerable girls, particularly in a society steeped in caste and gender hierarchies. By splitting hairs over “preparation” versus “attempt,” Mishra shields perpetrators with legal technicalities, betraying a deep-seated bias that prioritizes male intent over female suffering. His upper-caste privilege likely blinds him to the power dynamics at play—where a minor’s violation is reduced to a lesser offense like aggravated sexual assault, as if that softens the blow. This isn’t justice; it’s a patriarch’s dodge, preserving a system that excuses predatory behavior under the guise of judicial precision. The 11-year-old victim’s terror is dismissed, her agency erased by a judge whose worldview seems rooted in upholding caste-patriarchal norms rather than dismantling them. Mishra’s ruling doesn’t just fail the girl—it fails every survivor, signaling that their pain is negotiable, their bodies less worthy of protection, all because an elite judge deems it so. Shameful."

Critics also question whether the court’s focus on the absence of penetrative intent ignores the traumatic impact of the assault on the victim. The act of groping a minor’s breasts and attempting to disrobe her is seen as a clear indicator of sexual intent, and many believe it should be treated as attempted rape.

In a similar controversial judgement, in June 2024, the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Suwalal v. State, overturned a trial court’s conviction for attempted rape under Sections 376 and 511 IPC. The incident involved a 6-year-old girl who was forcibly taken to a dharamshala by the accused, Suwalal, with the intent to rape her. Villagers intervened before the crime could be completed.

While the trial court had convicted Suwalal for attempted rape, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the accused’s actions—removing the girl’s underwear and becoming fully naked—did not meet the legal threshold for attempted rape. Instead, the court reclassified the offense under Section 354 IPC (outraging a woman’s modesty), a lesser charge. This ruling, like the Allahabad HC’s recent decision, sparked debate over the interpretation of sexual assault laws and the protection of minors.

What Does This Mean for Future Cases?

The judgement has raised concerns about how similar cases will be handled in the future. Legal experts worry that this ruling could set a precedent for downgrading charges in sexual assault cases, particularly those involving minors. Activists are calling for a review of the judgement and urging higher courts to adopt a more victim-centric approach.

Actor turned Social Worker for Homeless Animal, Tarana Singh asks, What is Law? Law is curbing the basic ANIMAL INSTINCT of criminal minded Humans " All Rape and sexual abuse begins with a series of unpunished acts such as groping breasts, genitals, pulling clothes etc. If THIS is Not (ATTEMPT to) Rape, then WHAT IS IT? All Criminals will save this judgement of the HC Allahabad judge and USE it as a precedent to escape punishment for molestation. Is this the purpose and goal of Esteemed Judges? What is the contribution of Justice Workers who enable the criminals? Such Judges must STEP DOWN".

Meharaz, a final-year law student at the University of Delhi states, "The Allahabad High Court’s decision starkly exposes the judiciary's patriarchal bias. By minimizing the severity of sexual aggression, the court has not only disregarded the survivor’s trauma but also diluted the accountability of offenders. This ruling perpetuates the harmful belief that violence must reach a certain threshold to be taken seriously. It reflects a troubling reluctance to view sexual violence beyond the lens of physical evidence, ignoring the psychological and emotional harm inflicted on survivors. Such judicial reasoning emboldens perpetrators and discourages victims from pursuing justice. In a society plagued by gender-based violence, courts must shed their outdated views and adopt a survivor-centric approach. Justice demands more than legal technicalities — it requires empathy, awareness, and a commitment to upholding the dignity of every individual."

Rajasthan based Activist Suman Devathiya expressed deep concern over the judgement, stating, "This decision not only fails to protect the victim but also sends a chilling message that such acts will not be treated with the seriousness they deserve. It undermines the very purpose of laws like the POCSO Act, which were enacted to safeguard children from sexual violence. Such judgements embolden perpetrators and further traumatize survivors, making them question whether justice will ever be served."

The Allahabad High Court’s decision has ignited a fierce debate about the interpretation of sexual assault laws in India. While the court ruled that groping and disrobing do not constitute attempted rape, many believe that such acts are serious offenses that warrant harsher punishment. 

As the controversy continues to unfold, the judgement has become a rallying point for activists and citizens demanding justice for survivors of sexual assault and a more robust implementation of laws designed to protect them.