Supreme Court Steps In: Redefining Attempted Rape in India

The Supreme Court has stayed an Allahabad High Court ruling that downgraded charges against three accused from attempted rape to mere preparation, calling the judgment insensitive.

Allahabad High Court’s Ruling

The High Court removed charges of attempted rape and instead directed a trial under lesser offences, including:

• Section 354B of the IPC (using criminal force against a woman), and

• Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (aggravated sexual assault).

Background of the Case

The High Court was hearing an appeal against a POCSO court order that had summoned the accused for trial under:

• Section 376 IPC (rape), and

• Section 18 of the POCSO Act (punishment for attempt).

On March 17, the High Court removed attempted rape charges, terming the act as mere "preparation."

Key Legal Distinction: Preparation vs. Attempt

The case highlights the crucial difference between:

• Preparation (which is generally not punishable), and

• Attempt (which is criminally punishable).

This distinction led to Supreme Court intervention.

Legal Criteria for ‘Attempt’

In Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961), the Supreme Court outlined the requirements to establish an attempt:

1. The accused had the intention to commit the offence.

2. The accused prepared to commit the offence.

3. The accused took actions towards committing the offence (not necessarily the final act).

4. A penultimate act occurred in the course of committing the offence (proximity requirement).

Where Does ‘Attempt’ Begin?

In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980), the Supreme Court ruled:

"Attempt begins where preparation ends."

This means an accused cannot be punished for mere preparation unless an overt act leading to the crime is evident.

Allahabad HC’s Reasoning for Downgrading Charges

The High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the offence had progressed beyond preparation, and stated:

• The allegations did not meet the legal threshold for attempted rape.

• The 1836 English case Rex v. James Lloyd influenced its decision, requiring proof that the accused intended to gratify their passions despite resistance.

• There was no claim of penetrative assault, a key element in proving rape under the IPC.

Reduced Charges and Punishment

Instead of attempted rape, the court charged the accused under:

• Section 354B IPC (assault with intent to disrobe a woman), which carries a punishment of 1-5 years in prison.

Historical Precedents in Attempted Rape Cases

The Lloyd ruling (1836) continues to influence Indian courts in determining whether an accused has attempted to commit rape.

Recent Applications of the Lloyd Ruling

• May 2024: The Rajasthan High Court applied the Lloyd test, altering an attempted rape conviction to Section 354 IPC (assault on a woman with intent to outrage modesty).

• 2004: In Aman Kumar & Anr v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court similarly downgraded an attempted rape conviction to a lesser offence.

Supreme Court’s Criticism and Potential Legal Reassessment

On March 25, 2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the Allahabad HC’s ruling and issued a stay, stating that:

• The High Court’s reasoning was legally flawed, insensitive, and inhumane.

• This case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to redefine the legal standard for attempted rape.

Conclusion

The case underscores the legal distinction between preparation (not punishable) and attempt (punishable), prompting the Supreme Court’s intervention. The ruling could set a new precedent for how Indian courts interpret attempted rape cases