Allahabad High Court has considered grabbing breast and breaking pyjama string as a serious sexual assault and not rape. Justice Ram Manohar Mishra made this comment while accepting the criminal revision petition of Akash and two other accused in the case registered in Patiyali police station of Kasganj. The court also clarified that the difference between attempted rape and preparation for crime should be understood correctly.
The court ordered to prosecute the accused under section 354-B (assault with intent to disrobe) and section 9/10 (serious sexual assault) of POCSO Act instead of section 376 (rape). The court clarified that the facts of the allegations do not prove the attempt to rape.
What is the whole matter?
The incident dates back to 2021, when a court in Kasganj summoned two accused, Pawan and Akash, to face trial under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act for allegedly raping a minor girl.
The High Court has directed that the accused be tried under Section 9/10 (aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act along with the minor charge of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe).
Trial court order challenged
The trial court had issued a summons order considering it a case of attempted rape and sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. The accused had filed a revision petition in the High Court challenging this order, in which it was argued that on the basis of the complaint, this case does not fall under Section 376 IPC (rape) and it can only come under Section 354 (B) IPC and POCSO Act, which has also been accepted by the court.
What did the court say?
The court partially accepted the criminal revision petition and said that the allegations leveled against the accused Pawan and Akash and the facts of the case do not constitute the crime of attempted rape in this case. According to the prosecution, the accused Pawan and Akash grabbed the breasts of the 11-year-old victim and Akash broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her under the culvert, but due to the intervention of passersby / witnesses, the accused left the victim and fled from the spot. They did not commit the crime of rape.
The court said that there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the accused had the intention to rape the victim. He further said that from the statements recorded, it is clear that the accused himself got upset after breaking the thread of the lower garment.
