Today, the Supreme Court will listen to its SUO MOT at the controversial order of the High Court in Allahabad about what the accusation of rape represents. The bench composed of justice Brvai and the judiciary Augustine George Masih has this matter.
On Tuesday, the Apex court took Suo Motu knowledge of the decision of the High Court in Allahabad, the day after he dismissed the litigation (Pil) filed against the statement.
There is a sharp debate throughout the country after the judge of the High Court in Allahabad noted that “mere” grabbed the minor’s breasts and pulled the line of her pajamas, does not mean rape offenses or an attempt to rape. This statement was caused by extensive will, with political leaders and legal experts who expressed their disaster about it.
Legal experts condemned the observations of the High Court in Allahabad about what it represents the accusation of rape, and for these statements calls on the judges’ restrictions and emphasizes the decline in public confidence in the judiciary.
After resistance, the Supreme Court took note of the matter and registered the SUO Moto case.
The Supreme Court rejected a request
The SUO Motu case comes with the Supreme Court to hear the litigation (Pil) filed against the statement and tried to give an order to remove the controversial comment from the judgment.
The application also demanded that the court instructions to prevent the courts to prevent such controversial notes in the future.
What did Allahabad HC the judge for rape?
On March 17, High Court Allahabad decided that “mere” grabbed the minor’s breasts and pulled the chain of her pajamas, not a misdemeanor or an attempt to rape. However, such an offense falls under the scope of attack or the use of criminal forces against any woman with the intention of averting it or forcing it to be naked.
The Court noted that this “is not enough to conclude that the accused have decided to commit the rape of the victim, because besides these facts, no other act is attributed to support their alleged desire to commit the rape of the victim”.
The court noted that there was no material suggesting that the accused had a determined intention to commit the rape of the victim.
The order was accepted by Judge Ram Manohar Narayan Misra on the petition of revision filed by two persons moved by the court and questioned the order of the special judge Kasganje, who summoned them according to Section 376 IPC from other sections.
According to the facts on the case, the application was moved to the court of a special judge, the Pocso Act, who claimed that around 17:00 10 November 2021, the informant returned from her sister -in -law along with her smaller daughter at the age of about 14 years.
The defendant Pawan, Akash and Ashok, who were from her village, saw her on her way on the muddy road and asked where he came from. When she replied that she was coming from her sister -in -law’s place, Pawan offered an elevator to her daughter and assured her to drop her to her residence.
As she relied on his assurance, she allowed his daughter to accompany him on his motorcycle.
The accused people stopped their motorcycle on a muddy road to her village and began to grab her breasts. Akash pulled her away and tried to take it under the culvert and pulled out the chain of her pajamas.
Two people arrived at the point of hearing the shouts of a smaller girl. The accused people threatened them by aiming the pistol made in the ground and fled from the scene. After recording the statement of the victim and witnesses, the court charged the court.
After undergoing recording materials, the court found out: “In the present case, the accusation against the accused Pawan and Akash have grabbed the breasts of the victims and Akash tried to overthrow the lower victim’s clothing and to leave the victim.” ”
“This is not enough to refer to that the accused have decided to commit rape to the victim, because besides these facts, no other act is attributed to support their alleged desire to commit the rape of the victim,” he added.
The Court also noted that the specific accused against the accused Akash was that he tried to drag the victim under the culvert and pulled out the chain of her pajamas. Also, witnesses do not state that the victim was naked or undressed for this act, the court said.
“There is no assertion that the accused tried to commit a penetrative sexual assault on the victim,” the court said.
He stated that accusations against the accused Pawan and Akash and the fact of the case barely represent the offense of attempting to rape in this case. In order to accuse of an attempt to rape, the prosecution must prove that it has exceeded the preparation phase, he said.
“The difference between the preparation and the actual attempt to commit the crime is mainly to a greater determination,” the court added.
The court also stated: “In fact, the case is not an attempt to rape Prima Facia against the accused Pawan and Akash, and instead may be summoned for a minor accusation of section 354 (b) IP IE attack or abuse of a woman with intention to vomit or to satisfy or to be naked and Section 9 in terms of sexual loading.
Catch all commercial reports, intelligence violations and the latest update of the Live Mint. Download Mint News and get daily market updates.
Business NewsnewsinsIsupreme Court takes the knowledge of Suo Mot against “Not Rape” comments in Allahabad HC, two-jerks to hear the matter todayMoreLess (tagstotranslate) Supreme Court
