Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra has held that merely grabbing the victim's breasts, breaking the string of her pajama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing when interrupted was not sufficient to establish a case of attempt to rape. 

• The Allahabad High Court has held in the matter of Akash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Akash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others Case?  

• Asha Devi filed an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)  before the Special Judge under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, enacted in 2012. 
• The complaint alleged that while returning from her sister-in-law's home with her 14-year-old daughter, she encountered three co-villagers: Pawan, Akash, and Ashok. 
• Pawan offered to give Asha's daughter a ride home on his motorcycle, and Asha permitted this based on his assurance. 
• According to the complaint, instead of taking the girl home, the accused stopped on a muddy road where they allegedly began grabbing the girl's breasts. Akash allegedly tried to drag her beneath a culvert and broke the string of her pajama. 
• Two witnesses, Satish and Bhurey, who were following a tractor, heard the girl's cries and arrived at the scene. The accused allegedly threatened them with a country-made pistol before fleeing. 
• When Asha went to Pawan's house to complain, Pawan's father Ashok allegedly abused and threatened her. 
• She claimed she attempted to file an FIR the next day, but no action was taken by the police. 
• On March 21, 2022, the court treated her application as a complaint case and proceeded accordingly. 
• After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the court summoned Pawan and Akash under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (rape) read with Section 18 of POCSO Act (attempt to commit an offence), and summoned Ashok under Sections 504 and 506 IPC (intentional insult and criminal intimidation). 
• The accused persons filed a Criminal Revision challenging this summoning order, contending they were falsely implicated as retaliation for an earlier FIR filed by Akash's mother against family members of the complainant. 
• The revisionists claimed that Ranjana (Akash's mother) had filed an FIR against four persons including Sukhveer (who is allegedly related to the victim in the present case), alleging molestation and physical assault. 
• The defense argued this complaint was filed as a counter-blast to the earlier case, especially since a chargesheet had already been filed in Ranjana's case. 
• Based on the complainant's statements and witness testimony, the trial court found sufficient grounds to summon Pawan and Akash under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of POCSO Act (effectively charging them with attempt to rape). 
• The trial court also found grounds to summon Ashok (Pawan's father) under Sections 504 and 506 IPC for allegedly abusing and threatening the complainant when she approached their residence. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the present revision petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that: 
  • The High Court carefully examined whether the allegations could constitute an attempt to rape (Section 376/511 of IPC or Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of POCSO Act). 
  • The Court noted that the specific allegations against the accused were that they grabbed the victim's breasts, Akash tried to drag her beneath a culvert, and broke the string of her pajama before being interrupted by witnesses. 
  • The Court observed there was no allegation that the accused Akash himself got undressed after breaking the string of the victim's lower garment. 
  • It was also not stated by witnesses that the victim became naked or undressed due to the accused's actions. 
  • The High Court found no specific allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim. 
  • The Court emphasized that to establish a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must prove the act had gone beyond the stage of preparation, showing "a greater degree of determination." 
  • The High Court cited precedents including Rex v. James Lloyd (1836) and Express v. Shankar (1881), which established that conviction for attempt to rape requires evidence that the accused was determined "to gratify his passions at all events and in spite of all resistance." 
  • The Court concluded that merely grabbing the victim's breasts, breaking the string of her pajama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing when interrupted was not sufficient to establish a case of attempt to rape. 
  • The High Court determined that the facts instead supported charges under Section 354(B) IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) read with Section 9/10 of POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). 
  • The Court partially allowed the revision petition and modified the summoning order, directing the trial court to issue fresh summons to Pawan and Akash under the modified sections. 

What are the Offences Under POCSO Act?