Criminal PremiumSupreme Court of India

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 v. We the Women of India

(2026) INSC 165

Decided: 10 February 2026

Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice N. V. Anjaria

Attempt to commit rapePreparation vs attemptJudicial sensitivityPOCSOCompassion in judgingSexual offencesVictim rightsSuo motu writ jurisdiction

Key Issue / Question of Law

Whether the accused's actions of taking a minor victim on a motorcycle, dragging her near a culvert, and committing sexually offensive acts constituted 'preparation' or 'attempt' to commit rape. Additionally, whether guidelines are required to inculcate sensitivity and compassion in judicial approach while dealing with sexual offences.

Ratio Decidendi

An 'attempt' to commit an offence starts immediately after the completion of 'preparation' and represents the execution of mens rea. If the accused proceeds with a predetermined intent to commit rape and the crime is halted only due to intervention of third-party witnesses, a prima facie case for attempt to commit rape is made out. Courts must foster an environment of compassion and empathy in cases of sexual offences, and where past efforts have failed to inculcate sensitivity, expert committees may be constituted to draft guidelines for judicial approach.

Holding / Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment dated 17.03.2025, restoring the original summons order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj. The Court also requested the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal to constitute a five-member Committee of Experts chaired by Justice Aniruddha Bose to prepare a comprehensive report and draft guidelines for inculcating sensitivity and compassion into judges and judicial processes in sexual offence cases.

Background & Facts

The Supreme Court registered a suo motu writ petition following a letter from ‘We the Women of India’ highlighting an Allahabad High Court judgment dated 17.03.2025 that was described as erroneous and insensitive. Similar concerns were raised by NGOs from Kolkata and Delhi, along with the mother of the minor victim. In that judgment, a Single Judge modified summons issued by a Special Judge (POCSO) against two accused, reducing charges from Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 POCSO to lesser charges under Section 354B IPC read with Sections 9 and 10 POCSO. Factual allegations indicated that the accused took the minor victim on a motorcycle under the guise of dropping her home, dragged her near a culvert, and committed sexually offensive acts. They fled only when two witnesses arrived after hearing the victim's shrieks. The High Court concluded that these actions constituted mere 'preparation' and not 'attempt' to commit rape. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's judgment on 26.03.2025 and 08.12.2025, and then heard the matter.

Statutes Involved

Section 376, Indian Penal Code — Penalises rape, including sexual intercourse against a woman's will or without consent
Section 354B, Indian Penal Code — Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe
Section 18, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — Punishment for attempt to commit an offence under the Act
Sections 9 and 10, POCSO Act — Aggravated sexual assault (Section 9) and punishment thereof (Section 10)

Full Analysis

This comprehensive analysis covers the full ratio of the bench, the reasoning applied by the court, key precedents distinguished or relied upon, and practical implications for practitioners appearing before constitutional courts. The analysis also covers procedural aspects and the implications for pending matters in lower courts...

Premium Content

Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.

Subscribe — ₹99/month Already a subscriber? Sign in

Advocate's Note — Agarawal Associates

Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...

Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.

Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat

This judgment applies ONLY where the accused has shown predetermined intent to commit rape, moved beyond preparation by taking overt actions (e.g., dragging, sexually offensive acts), and the crime was halted solely by third-party intervention. If the accused voluntarily desisted without external compulsion, or if the actions remain purely preparatory (e.g., mere planning, procuring tools without approaching the victim), then this judgment does not compel a finding of attempt.

Cases Cited

State of Madhya Pradesh v Mahendra alias Golu (2022) 12 SCC 442 — The Court reiterated from this case that 'attempt' starts immediately after completion of 'preparation' and the complainant's story represents execution of mens rea.

Read Full Judgment

Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in