The recent legal proceedings surrounding the Allahabad High Court ruling in a child abuse case have ignited significant debate and concern across India. The case involves two men,
The recent legal proceedings surrounding the Allahabad High Court ruling in a child abuse case have ignited significant debate and concern across India. The case involves two men, Pawan and Akash, accused of assaulting an 11-year-old girl by grabbing her breasts, breaking the string of her pyjamas, and attempting to drag her under a culvert.
In its judgment, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the actions of the accused did not amount to an attempt to rape. The court reasoned that for an act to be classified as an attempt to rape, it must go beyond mere preparation and demonstrate a greater degree of determination. The court stated, “The allegations leveled against the accused Pawan and Akash and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape… The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination.”
Instead, the High Court held that the accused could be charged under Section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Section 9(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. So this pertains to aggravated sexual assault on a child below twelve years.
The High Court’s ruling met with widespread criticism, leading the Supreme Court of India to take suo motu cognizance of the matter. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih stayed the High Court’s order, expressing strong disapproval of its observations. The Supreme Court remarked, “We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned judgment… depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment.”
The apex court highlighted that the judgment was delivered four months after being reserved. Indicating a considered application of mind, which made the perceived insensitivity even more concerning. The Supreme Court further noted that the observations in the High Court’s judgment were “totally unknown to the tenets of law and depict total insensitivity and inhuman approach.”
This case underscores the critical importance of sensitivity and adherence to legal principles in judicial pronouncements, especially in cases involving sexual offences and minors. The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects a commitment to ensuring that judicial decisions do not inadvertently perpetuate insensitivity or undermine the gravity of sexual offences.
The controversy also brings to light the nuanced distinctions in legal definitions of sexual offences. While the High Court emphasized the difference between preparation and attempt in the context of rape, the Supreme Court’s response suggests a broader interpretation that considers the totality of actions and their impact on the victim.
Furthermore, the case highlights the role of public and organizational advocacy in prompting judicial review. The Supreme Court’s suo motu cognizance initiated following a letter from the organization ‘We the Women of India,’ demonstrating the influence of civil society in upholding justice.
The Supreme Court’s stay on the Allahabad High Court’s ruling serves as a pivotal moment in the discourse on judicial sensitivity and the interpretation of sexual offence laws in India. It emphasizes the necessity for the judiciary to approach such cases with the utmost care, ensuring that legal interpretations do not inadvertently diminish the severity of offences or the experiences of victims. As the legal proceedings continue, this case will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing dialogue on how the Indian legal system addresses and adjudicates cases of sexual assault, particularly those involving minors.
