Breaking a girl's pajama string and grabbing her breasts is not rape, according to the High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that forcibly grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her does not amount to rape or an attempt to rape. Instead, the court classified these acts under the category of "aggravated sexual assault" as defined by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 

The ruling, delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, modified an earlier trial court order that had summoned the accused — identified as Pawan and Akash — under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to rape, and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, which addresses attempts to commit sexual offences against children. After a detailed review of the case, the High Court ruled that the accused should instead face charges under Section 354-B of the IPC — which deals with assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe a woman — alongside Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, which define and penalize aggravated sexual assault.

The case stems from an incident where the two accused allegedly attacked a girl, believed to be between 11 and 12 years old. According to the prosecution, Akash grabbed the girl's breasts, broke the string of her pyjama, and tried to drag her under a culvert. The two fled when concerned passersby intervened. The girl’s statement, supported by witnesses, described the traumatic sequence of events, but the court found that the actions, while aggressive and deeply disturbing, did not demonstrate an unequivocal intention to commit rape — a key legal requirement for an attempted rape charge.

The accused contested the initial charges, arguing that their actions did not amount to an attempt to rape and should instead be categorized under Sections 354 and 354-B of the IPC — provisions dealing with sexual harassment and physical assault to outrage a woman’s modesty or disrobe her. 

The High Court’s judgment centered on the absence of concrete evidence that the accused had gone beyond preparation and taken actions that directly progressed toward the commission of rape. The court emphasized that while the accused’s behavior was abhorrent and deserving of strict punishment, the legal distinction between sexual assault and attempted rape must be maintained. Justice Mishra stated, "The specific allegation against Akash is that he tried to drag the victim beneath the culvert and broke the string of her pyjama. It is also not stated by witnesses that due to this act of the accused, the victim got naked or undressed. There is no allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim." 

The court further observed that while the accused's conduct was severe enough to warrant charges under aggravated sexual assault provisions, it did not meet the criteria to constitute an attempt to rape. The ruling elaborated that an attempt to rape requires clear, demonstrable intent accompanied by direct action leading toward the act of penetration — a threshold the court found was not met in this case. The judgment has sparked widespread debate, drawing strong reactions from legal experts, child protection activists, and the public. Critics argue that this distinction may unintentionally dilute the seriousness of such heinous acts, sending a harmful message that non-penetrative sexual violence against children is less severe. Activists have pointed out that for a young girl, the trauma of having her body violated in this manner — regardless of whether penetration occurred — is profoundly damaging and life-altering.

 Legal analysts, however, have noted that the court's decision aligns with the technical definitions laid out in the IPC and POCSO Act, which require specific intent and an overt act toward penetration for a charge of attempted rape to hold. They argue that while the court's interpretation may seem harsh, it reflects the current legal structure, which distinguishes between various forms of sexual assault to ensure that each offence is prosecuted appropriately under the law. This ruling highlights the ongoing struggle within the legal system to balance technical definitions with the lived realities of survivors. It also underscores the need for continued discussions on whether existing laws adequately address the full spectrum of sexual violence, particularly against children. Many advocates are now calling for legislative reforms to close perceived loopholes and ensure that all forms of sexual violence — regardless of whether penetration occurs — are met with equally stringent penalties.