In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Supreme Court of India, 10 February 2026, 3 judges, 2026 INSC 165
The Court set aside a High Court revision order that had reduced a summons for attempt to rape of a minor to a lesser charge, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed an attempt and not mere preparation.
Facts
The Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj summoned two accused under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act on a complaint by the mother of a minor girl. The allegation was that the accused offered to take the girl home on their motorcycle, stopped near a culvert, dragged her towards it and committed sexually offensive acts, fleeing only when her shrieks brought two witnesses. In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024, a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, on 17.03.2025, modified the summons to Section 354B IPC read with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, finding only preparation and no attempt to rape. On a letter from the organisation 'We the Women of India', a suo motu writ petition was registered; NGOs and the complainant also appealed. The accused did not appear despite notice.
Questions before the Court
- Did the allegations, prima facie, show only preparation to commit rape or an attempt to commit rape, for the purpose of summoning the accused?
- Should the Court lay down guidelines to bring sensitivity and compassion into the judicial approach in cases of sexual offences involving vulnerable victims?
What the Court held
- Preparation consists of deliberation and arranging the means for an offence; attempt begins immediately after preparation is complete and is the execution of mens rea, falling short of commission.
- On the complainant's allegations, the accused proceeded with a pre-determined intent to commit rape and the mens rea had begun to be executed; the crime was not furthered only because witnesses intervened. A prima facie case of attempt to commit rape was made out, and the High Court's contrary finding was a patently erroneous application of settled principles.
- The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the original summons order restored, confirming the interim clarification that the trial proceed under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act. The observations are prima facie and not an opinion on guilt.
- Rather than frame guidelines unaided, the Court requested the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, through Justice Aniruddha Bose, to constitute a Committee of Experts to prepare draft guidelines, in simple language, on sensitivity and compassion in handling sexual offence and other vulnerable cases, and disposed of the suo motu petition.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the distinction between preparation and attempt at the stage of summons, holding that the High Court erred in revision in treating as mere preparation allegations which showed that execution of the intent to rape had begun. It also records that judicial decisions must reflect compassion towards vulnerable litigants, and requests the National Judicial Academy to constitute an expert committee to draft guidelines for judges and court processes in sexual offence cases.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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.”
“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.”
“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 in approaching a court of law. Our decisions as participants in the legal process, from laying down the procedure that shall have to be faced by common citizens to the final judgment passed in any given case, must reflect the ethos of compassion, humanity, and understanding, which are essential for creating a fair and effective justice system.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 64 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 62 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 18, POCSO Act
- Section 354B, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 76 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 9, POCSO Act
- Section 10, POCSO Act
Case and bench
- Parties
- 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
- Case
- Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1 / 2025, with Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 15692/2025 and Diary No. 21813/2025
- Decided
- 10 February 2026
- Bench
- Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, N. V. Anjaria
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court by Surya Kant, CJI, signed also by Joymalya Bagchi and N. V. Anjaria, JJ. No separate opinion appears in the file.