Back
Supreme Court Delivers Justice to 11-Year-Old Victim, Rebukes High Court for Downgrading Charges
In a landmark intervention, the has overturned a controversial order that diluted charges against two men accused of groping an 11-year-old girl and attempting to disrobe her. A bench led by Justice Suryakant , alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria , restored the trial court's summons under and . Beyond correcting the legal error, the apex court ordered the formation of an expert committee to craft guidelines ensuring judges handle sexual offence cases with greater sensitivity.
A Betrayal of Trust in Kasganj
The ordeal unfolded in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh, in Complaint Case No. 23/2022 . The accused, identified as Pawan and Akash, offered to drop the minor victim home on their motorcycle after assuring her mother—the complainant. Instead, they veered off course, stopped near a culvert, grabbed the girl's breasts, broke the string of her pyjama, and tried dragging her underneath. Passersby intervened after her screams, forcing the duo to flee.
The , issued summons on (noted as in some records), finding evidence of or under POCSO. The accused challenged this via revision, leading to the High Court's , order by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra.
High Court Sparks Outrage: "Just Preparation, Not Attempt"
The modified the charges to the lesser (assault to disrobe) with (aggravated sexual assault). It reasoned the acts—grabbing breasts, breaking the pyjama string, and dragging—only showed "preparation" to rape, not a "determined intent" or "attempt," as no further acts followed due to intervention. The court noted the absence of claims that the accused were "sexually unsettled."
This drew sharp criticism. A letter from founder-president and Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta prompted the Supreme Court's writ petition (Criminal) No. 1/2025. Appeals from the victim's mother, a Delhi NGO, and a Kolkata NGO followed, highlighting the order's insensitivity.
Petitioners Push Back: Acts Crossed into Dangerous Territory
Represented by Senior Advocates Shobha Gupta and H.S. Phookla , petitioners argued the High Court misapplied criminal jurisprudence. They stressed the accused's overt acts—deception, isolation, groping, disrobing attempt—went beyond mere planning into execution of for rape. Citing the victim's tender age and the interrupted crime, they urged restoration of original charges and broader guidelines against victim-blaming judicial remarks.
The State of Uttar Pradesh supported, with Senior Additional Advocate General Sharan Dev Singh Thakur appearing. Notably, the accused, aware of proceedings, chose not to contest.
Precision Cuts: Preparation or Attempt? Supreme Court Clarifies
The Supreme Court drew a sharp line between "preparation" (deliberation and arrangement) and "attempt" (execution of means post-preparation). Quoting its own precedent in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra alias Golu (2022) 12 SCC 442:
“The stage of 'preparation' consists of deliberation, devising or arranging the means or measures... Whereas, an 'attempt' to commit the offence, starts immediately after the completion of preparation. 'Attempt' is the execution of after preparation.”
Reviewing allegations, the bench found the accused had "proceeded with pre-determined intent," executing acts toward rape, halted only by witnesses. This made out attempt to rape , warranting and Section 18 POCSO . The High Court's view was "patently erroneous."
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment is peppered with poignant directives:
"A bare perusal of these allegations leaves no modicum of doubt that the cases sought to be made out is that the accused persons proceeded with a pre-determined intent to commit an offence underon her."(Para 13)
"No judge or judgment of any court can be expected to do complete justice when it is inconsiderate towards the factual realities of a litigant and the vulnerabilities which they may be facing."(Para 19)
"Our decisions... must reflect the ethos of compassion, humanity, and understanding, which are essential for creating a fair and effective justice system."(Para 19)
Beyond Reversal: A Mandate for Empathetic Justice
The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the trial court's summons restored. The trial proceeds as originally framed, with a caveat: observations are , not binding on guilt.
Addressing systemic flaws, the court tasked the , under former Judge Justice Aniruddha Bose as chair, to form a five-member expert committee. It must deliver draft guidelines within three months on inculcating "sensitivity and compassion" in handling sexual offences and vulnerable cases. Emphasizing simplicity, linguistic diversity, and victim-centricity—even compiling offensive regional expressions—the panel aims to empower victims and transform judicial processes.
This ruling not only vindicates a child's trauma but signals a judiciary awakening to empathy's role in justice delivery, potentially reshaping how courts approach India's most vulnerable.
