Source: The Indian Express  

Introduction 

The legal distinction between "preparation" and "attempt" in criminal law is critically important, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual offenses against minors. A recent Supreme Court intervention in an Allahabad High Court case has highlighted the nuanced and complex interpretations of what constitutes an attempt to commit rape, challenging existing legal standards and emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive approach to protecting vulnerable victims. 

What is Preparation and Attempt Under Indian Laws? 

Preparation: 

• "Preparing to commit an offence is a stage that precedes the attempt to commit that offence." 
• Involves initial planning or getting ready to commit a crime. 
• "Not punishable in the vast majority of cases". 
• Represents the early stage where an individual is thinking about or preparing to commit a crime. 
• Does not involve direct action towards committing the offence.  

Attempt: 

• "An attempt to commit an offence is criminally punishable". 
• Requires proving specific elements:  
  • Clear "intention" to commit the offence. 
  • Made preparations. 
  • Took actions towards committing the offence.  
  • Performed a "penultimate act" close to committing the crime. 
• "Attempt begins where preparation ends" 
• Involves substantial and direct progress towards committing the crime. 
• Demonstrates a clear intent to overcome potential obstacles or resistance. 

What was the Case of Akash v. State of UP (2025)? 

Fact of the Case: 

• The incident involved three unidentified accused persons and a minor girl. 
• The accused met the minor girl and her mother and offered to drop the child home on their motorcycle. 
• During the journey, the accused started grabbing the girl's breasts. 
• The accused attempted to drag the girl and tried to take her beneath a culvert. 
• The accused broke the string of the girl's pajamas. 
• Two witnesses heard the child's cries and arrived at the scene before any further assault could occur. 
• Upon arrival of the witnesses, the accused made threats and immediately fled the location. 
• The initial legal proceedings involved a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) court summoning the accused to trial. 
• The original charges against the accused were:  
  • Attempt to commit rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  
  • Attempt to commit an offence under Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

High Court Judgment: 

• The judgment was delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on March 17, 2025, addressing allegations against two accused persons named Pawan and Akash. 
• The High Court's key observation was that the allegations of grabbing the victim's breasts and attempting to break her pyjama string did not constitute an attempt to rape. 
• The court specifically noted that there was no material evidence suggesting the accused had a determined intent to commit rape against the victim. 
• The judgment highlighted that neither the complaint nor witness statements alleged that the accused tried to commit a penetrative sexual assault. 
• The High Court argued that the prosecution must establish actions that go beyond the stage of preparation, emphasizing the difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offense. 
• The court observed that it was not stated by witnesses that the victim was made naked or undressed by the accused's actions. 
• As a result, the High Court modified the original summoning order, reducing the charges from attempted rape to a lesser offense of assault. 
• The court directed the lower court to issue a fresh summoning order under revised sections, specifically Section 354-B IPC (assault with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act. 
• The judgment essentially downgraded the severity of the charges, suggesting that the alleged actions did not meet the legal threshold for an attempted rape charge. 

Supreme Court Judgment: 

• The Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court's ruling on 26th March 2025. 
• The Bench of Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih strongly criticized the Allahabad High Court's judgment. 
• The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's observations showed "a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment". 
• The Court took suo motu (on its own) cognizance of the High Court verdict on 25th March 2025. 
• The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's classification of the act as mere "preparation" instead of an "attempt" to rape. 
• The Supreme Court challenged the High Court's decision to reduce the charges from attempted rape to a minor assault charge. 
• The Court stated that the Allahabad High Court's observations are "totally unknown to the tenets of law and depict total insensitivity and inhuman approach". 
• The Supreme Court directed that the accused should be tried under the original charges of attempted rape, rather than the reduced charges. 
• The decision provides the need for a more comprehensive and sensitive approach to interpreting sexual assault cases involving minors. 
• The Court's intervention suggests a stricter interpretation of what constitutes an "attempt" to commit rape, particularly in cases involving children. 

What were the Previous Cases Referred? 

• Rex v. James Lloyd (1836) 
  • The Lloyd ruling is an almost two-centuries-old legal precedent that continues to influence rape attempt cases. 
  • The ruling set a high bar for proving attempted rape, requiring:  
    • Clear intention to commit the crime 
    • Evidence of determined effort to overcome resistance 
    • Demonstrable steps beyond mere preparation 
• Rajasthan High Court Case (May 2024) 
  • The Rajasthan High Court applied the Lloyd ruling and standard attempt test. 
  • The court altered an attempted rape conviction. 
  • The judgment reduced the charges to Section 354, thereby reducing the punishment. 
• Supreme Court Precedent: Aman Kumar & Anr v. State of Haryana (2004) 
  • The Supreme Court adopted a similar approach to the recent Allahabad High Court case. 
  • The judgment focused on distinguishing between preparation and attempt. 
  • The court applied a nuanced interpretation of criminal intent in sexual assault cases. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's suo motu cognizance of the Allahabad High Court verdict signals a potential shift in how attempted sexual offenses are legally interpreted. By challenging narrow and insensitive definitions of criminal attempts, the court seeks to ensure that legal frameworks adequately protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable, moving beyond technical distinctions that may inadvertently minimize the severity of sexual misconduct.