The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the controversial observations by the Allahabad High Court in an order, which said that said grabbing of the breast and pulling the string of a 'pyjama' do not amount to intent to rape.
The Supreme Court bench said that some of the observations made in the high court order depicted total insensitiveness and an inhuman approach.
The Allahabad High Court had ruled on March 17 that grabbing an 11-year-old라이브 바카라 breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her off road are not acts showing intent to rape. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra said that this could only amount to “aggravated sexual assault” and modified the charges against two accused.
“The allegations levelled against the accused, Pawan and Akash, and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. To bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation,” said the court.
Earlier, Union Minister of Women and Child Development Annpurna Devi on March 21 condemned it as "wrong" and urged the Supreme Court to take note of the matter. She warned that such a ruling would "send a wrong message to society".
This was, however, not the first ruling of its kind. Indian courts have been, increasingly, giving wildly different and regressive judgments in rape cases for several years now.
No Skin-to-Skin Contact Means No Rape
In 2021, Bombay High Court judge Pushpa Ganediwala ruled that a 39-year-old man could not be convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl as he had not taken off her clothes, meaning there was no skin-on-skin contact.
According to the order, in December 2016, the man took the pre-teen to his house saying he would give her a guava. He locked the main door to his flat and touched her chest and tried to remove her underwear, court noted. On the basis of this, the man was sentenced three years in prison for the crime of sexually assaulting a minor.
On appeal, Justice Ganediwala on January 19, 2021, said the facts “would not fall in the definition of ‘sexual assault,’” which carries a minimum three year prison term which can be extended to five years.
“Considering the stringent nature of punishment provided for the offense, in the opinion of this court, stricter proof and serious allegations are required,” she said in her order. There is no provision in POCSO that requires skin-to-skin contact for the crime to be registered.
Pressing Minor라이브 바카라 Lips, Sleeping Next To Her Not Sexual Assault— Delhi Court
Just three weeks ago, Delhi High Court judge Swarna Kanta Sharma said that an uncle who was touching and pressing his 11-year-old niece라이브 바카라 girl's lips and sleeping next to her, could not be charged for sexual assault under POCSO, but added that his actions could amount to a crime under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for "assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty."
"Essential ingredients of an offence under Section 354 of the IPC are squarely met. This provision criminalises the use of criminal force or assault against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to do so," the court stated while adding that the uncle had violated the minor라이브 바카라 dignity, bodily autonomy, and modesty.
Bail to Rape Accused on the Promise to Marry Survivor of Rape
In February 2025, Allahabad High Court granted bail to a rape accused on the condition that he marry his victim within three months of his release.
Justice Krishan Pahal ordered the 26-year-old man who was accused of raping, exploiting (blackmailing) and sharing a 23-year-old woman라이브 바카라 photos online to marry his victim. The court granted him bail on the condition that “he will marry the woman, 23, within three months after coming out on bail and shall not tamper with evidence.”
On the day the bail was granted, the accused라이브 바카라 lawyer Neeraj Pathak told The Times of India, “The conditions laid down by the court will be adhered to by my client. The woman will be notified, and complete compliance with court directives will be ensured.”
Bail to Man Accused of Raping a Minor on Condition of Marrying Her
In October 2024, Allahabad High Court ordered rape accused to marry his 15-year-old victim and deposit Rs two lakhs in a Fixed Deposit to financially take care of the newborn resulting from the rape.
Once again, Justice Krishan Pahal released the accused Abhishek on his lawyer라이브 바카라 assurance that the accused “shall marry the victim within three months from his release from jail and take care of her as well as the newborn baby.”
According to the court documents, the man had allegedly had physical relations with a 15-year-old girl promising her marriage. The victim became pregnant, and the accused refused to fulfil his promise of marriage and threatened her to remain silent. Subsequently, a rape case was registered against him under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act at Chilkana Police Station of Saharanpur district.
“The challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine cases of exploitation and those involving consensual relationships. This requires a nuanced approach and careful judicial consideration to ensure justice is served appropriately,” the court said.
In January 2025, a Delhi court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping a divorced woman on the pretext of marriage, saying the woman라이브 바카라 complaint of rape was not prompt.
The man was accused of raping the woman in 2016, but the court said she had taken too long to report the crime.
Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Singh said, “The period of eight years is too long to seriously wait for the accused to act upon his alleged promise to marry the complainant."
Rape Laws “Too Women-Centric” — Allahabad High Court
In June 2024, while delivering a judgment on a rape case, a double bench comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla in Allahabad High Court said that the law on sexual offences is rightly women-centric but “that does not mean that the male partner is always wrong.”
"No doubt, chapter XVI (on) 'sexual offences' is a women-centric enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them," the court said.
The bench was hearing an appeal on a matter where a SC woman had accused an UC man of raping her and making derogatory comments about her caste.
