Grabbing breasts and untying pyjama string is not rape: Allahabad High Court makes controversial observation on POCSO case

NEW DELHI: The Allahabad High Court has made a controversial observation that grabbing breasts and snapping the ties of a pyjama do not constitute rape or attempt to rape. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra's assessment is that it is only aggravated sexual assault. He also clarified that it is enough to face trial for the crime of sexual assault alone. This is in a case where an 11-year-old girl was raped by two men in Uttar Pradesh. There was severe criticism, including on social media, against the verdict. Senior advocate Indira Jaising demanded that the Supreme Court take suo motu action and intervene.

The incident in question took place in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh, in 2021. Akash and Pawan, who came on a bike, dragged the girl who was walking into a nearby underground tunnel. They pressed on her breast and broke the ties of her pyjamas. The girl was rescued by those who came there after hearing her scream. The police charged the accused under the POCSO Act and rape charges under IPC. The trial court initiated proceedings by charging the same charges. The accused approached the Allahabad High Court against this. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra's assessment was that there was only preparation for the crime. He pointed out that there was no evidence to prove rape or an attempt to commit it.

Cannot be acquitted: Supreme Court

Meanwhile, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court observed in a rape case in Rajasthan that the accused could not be acquitted because the victim girl was crying without giving a statement during the trial. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision to acquit the accused. The seven-year rigorous imprisonment ordered by the trial court was restored. The High Court acquitted the accused by giving the benefit of the doubt, citing the lack of direct statement from the girl. The Supreme Court observed that if there is medical and circumstantial evidence, the absence of the victim's statement is not applicable. The court also referred to the pain suffered by the victim and her family for nearly 40 years over the incident that took place in March 1986.