Facts: The case involves allegations that two accused persons took a minor girl on a motorcycle under the pretext of dropping her home, but instead diverted to a secluded spot near a culvert. They dragged her toward the culvert and engaged in sexually offensive acts. The acts were interrupted only when third-party witnesses arrived after hearing the victim's shrieks, causing the accused to flee. The Trial Court issued summons for attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. However, the Allahabad High Court modified these charges to lesser offences under Section 354B IPC and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act, concluding that the actions constituted mere "preparation" rather than a criminal "attempt".
Procedural Posture: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the High Court's judgment following a letter from a women's rights organization. This was heard alongside Special Leave Petitions filed by an NGO and the victim's mother challenging the same High Court order.
Issue: Whether the actions of the accused, having been interrupted by third parties after dragging the victim to a secluded spot and committing offensive acts, constituted a "preparation" to commit rape or a legally punishable "attempt". Additionally, the court addressed the broader issue of judicial sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences against minors.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the actions constituted a prima facie case of "attempt" to commit rape. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the original summons order.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that "preparation" involves devising means, whereas "attempt" is the execution of mens rea that follows the completion of preparation. In this case, the execution of the criminal intent had clearly begun. The Court noted that the only reason the crime was not completed was the intervention of witnesses. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that judicial decisions must reflect empathy and compassion. It found the High Court's reasoning "patently erroneous" and "insensitive", leading to the constitution of an Expert Committee to draft guidelines for inculcating sensitivity in judges when dealing with sexual offences and vulnerable victims.