Inevitably A Case For Invoking Offence Of Attempt To Rape: Supreme Court Sets Aside Controversial Allahabad High Court Decision On Sexual Assault

The Court held that the attempt made by the accused persons appears clearly and inevitably a case for invoking the provisions of attempt to commit rape has been made out by the complainant and the prosecution.

​The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria observed, “The facts alleged being so, we cannot agree with the finding of the High Court that the allegations only amount to preparation, but not an attempt, towards the commission of the offence of rape. The attempt made by the accused persons appears clearly and inevitably leads us to conclude that, prima facie, a case for invoking the provisions of attempt to commit rape has been made out by the complainant and the prosecution. The impugned judgment, thus, is liable to be set aside on account of the patently erroneous application of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.”

Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, and Senior Additional Advocate General Sharan Dev Singh Thakur appeared for the Parties.

The instant suo motu writ petition was registered in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, prompted by a letter dated March 20, 2025, received from an organisation named ‘We the Women of India’, through its Founder President, Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta. The Court also heard the Appeals filed assailing the impugned judgment and summoning order passed by the Trial Court.

The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated March 17, 2025, held that merely grabbing the breasts of a minor and pulling the string of her pyjama to “bring down” her lower garment are not sufficient facts, by themselves, to establish an intention on the part of the accused to commit rape.

The main issue for the consideration of the Court was whether the accused persons had only ‘prepared’ to commit the offence of rape or had moved beyond that to have ‘attempted’ to commit the said crime. Notably, the High Court concluded that the actions of the accused persons were limited only to the former, thereby warranting a modification in the charge on which the accused were summoned.

The High Court stated that the accused persons took the minor victim with them as a pillion rider on their motorcycle, after assuring her mother (the complainant) that they would drop the victim at her residence. The accused persons, instead, stopped the motorcycle near a culvert, dragged her towards it, and committed sexually offensive acts. However, due to the shrieks of the minor victim, two witnesses reached the spot, causing the accused persons to flee from the site.

It was observed, “A bare perusal of these allegations leaves no modicum of doubt that the case sought to be made out is that the accused persons proceeded with a pre-determined intent to commit an offence under Section 376 of the IPC on her. In light of the overt averments recorded in the Criminal Application filed by the complainant-mother under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it becomes readily apparent that, from the story of the complainant, the mens rea involved had begun to be executed. This understanding is bolstered by the High Court’s own recording that the only reason why the crime was not furthered was the above-mentioned intervention by third-party witnesses.”

Previously, on December 8, 2025, the Court observed that the disturbing judicial observations made in sexual harassment and assault cases by the High Courts may have a chilling effect on the victim, and certain guidelines may be issued to curb these comments.

The Bench had also directed the SHO to formally communicate the details of the next hearing to the concerned parties. The court explicitly clarified that this matter will not be postponed again for reasons related to confirming service or notification, thereby setting a firm deadline for the proceedings to move forward.

The Supreme Court had stayed controversial observations made by the Allahabad High Court, which had ruled that acts of grabbing a child victim's breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert do not constitute the offence of rape or attempt to rape. The Apex Court found the High Court's Order totally insensitive and termed it an "inhumane approach."

Previously, on April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter over the Allahabad High Court’s controversial observations, listing it after four weeks as service is awaited. While adjourning the matter, the bench remarked, "There is now another order passed by another judge from the same High Court…". The Bench added, "Grant bail if they have to, but what are these observations that 'she invited trouble for herself'… and all that?"

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order.

Cause Title: In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 165]

Appearances:

Parties: Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Advocate on Record Prashant Padmanabhan, Advocate on Record Shashi, Advocate Bhuwan Ribhu, Advocate Rachna Tyagi, Advocate Saksham Maheshwari, Advocate Surabhi Katyal, Advocate Surpreet Kaur, Advocate Amar Lal.

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, Senior Additional Advocate General Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Advocate on Record Ruchira Goel, Advocate on Record Aditya Ranjan, Advocate on Record Rahul Gupta, Advocate Sharanya, Advocate Ritika Rao, Advocate Ayushi Srivastava, Advocate Yogmaya MG, Advocate Komal Saini, Advocate Siny Sara Varghese, Advocate Rohin Bhatt, Advocate Pritam Singh, Advocate Umesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate Parvathi Menon, Advocate Sangeeth Mohan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment