The Supreme Court, at the end of March, remained in Allahabad High Court Regulation of 17 March approved by the only judge of justice Ram Manohar Narayan Misra. | Photo Credit: Hind
The mother of a smaller victim, who was sexually attacked and partially perverted by two men, joined the cause in the case of Suo Mot, established by the Supreme Court against the command of the High Court in Allahabad, which refused to attack an attack as an attempt to rape.
The only judge of the Supreme Court said that men could be at best accused of a minor offense “outrage of modesty” and did not try to rape, sexual assault and smashed her pajama strings.
According to the version of the criminal prosecution, the duo of the victim gave a lift on the bike, grabbed her breasts, broke her pajama chain, and tried to drag it under the culvert before fled when they saw them.
Also read | The Supreme Court remains “inhuman” notes of Allahabad High Court to attempt to rape
“The measures concerned committed with a clear sexual intention are direct steps to support rape and should not be rejected as a mere” outrage of modesty “. It is submitted by respondents (accused) who have been electorally committed, rather forced to flee from all children, ”only the rights to children were forced.
The petition, represented by HS Phooolka’s chief attorney, came to hear in front of the bench headed by the justice Bravai. The bench marked a lawsuit with the SUO MOTU case that would appear on April 15.
The application stated that the High Court was not considered to be other recognizable offenses against the accused, kidnapping and procuration of a smaller girl for unlawful intercourse, except for an attempt to rape and criminal offenses under the protection of children from sexual offenses (PESO).
The Supreme Court, at the end of March, remained in Allahabad High Court Regulation of 17 March approved by the only judge of justice Ram Manohar Narayan Misra. The High Court’s order came to the revision filed by the accused against the summons of the Court on the basis of accusations of rape.
The best court noted that the High Court’s order was “completely insensitive, inhuman” and “unknown principles of law”.
Judge Gavai pointed out that some paragraphs of the order that graphically told the trauma that was launched by a minor victim in the hands of two accused people only concluded that their conduct showed no decision by the duo to rape it.
The Indian prosecutor R. Venkataraman and the general lawyer Tushar Mehta, who called on the bench, helped the Supreme Court to explore the SUO Motu case with great care.
The court issued a notice to the Government of the Union and the state of UTTAR Pradesh at the previous meeting on March 26. At that time, the mother of the minor victim was also awarded freedom to implement in the case of implementation.
Published – April 9, 2025 9:49
