INTRODUCTION
How can touching a minor girl wrongly and removing her clothes be considered as ‘preparation’ and not as an ‘attempt to rape’? This question arose after a judgment given by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Akash and 2 Ors v State of U.P.[1], and it was criticised that the court didn’t realise the seriousness of the act and its impact on that child. To address this, the Supreme Court stepped in using its Suo Motu power and strengthened the scope of “Attempt to rape”.[2] This blog addresses this issue by analysing the judgment of the Supreme Court of India and explaining how it clarified the law on attempt to rape.
TRACING THE ROOTS OF THE LAW ON ATTEMPTS
In earlier times, there were no proper laws to distinguish between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’. People followed rules which are mostly based on customs and moral values, and there were no proper laws to explain these stages of crime. This changed when the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was introduced, and there was a structured legal framework to explain and differentiate intent, preparation, attempt, etc.
After independence, the Constitution of India shifted the focus more towards protecting people’s rights and dignity and started to interpret laws to understand the legislator’s intent and render a judgment that serves justice. Also, the Supreme Court made it clear that any intention with a closeness to the commission of a crime will be treated as an ‘attempt’.
Also, recently, there has been an increasing awareness about sexual offences, mainly against children. Laws like the POCSO Act, 2012, have also been introduced to provide protection. Even though there are many challenges in protecting these rights, the law is gradually improving to provide better protection and better justice for victims.
SETTING CLEAR BOUNDARIES: STRENGTHENING PROTECTION FOR VICTIMS
In the case handled by the Allahabad High Court, the court said that acts like touching a girl wrongly, loosening her pyjama string, and trying to drag her were only preparation and not an attempt to rape. These actions were very close to committing the crime, and if no one had stopped them, it could have become a full rape. Treating it as only preparation ignored the seriousness of the act and the risk faced by the victim.
The Supreme Court used its own power to step in and correct this. The court said that these actions show clear criminal intent and direct steps towards committing rape, so they must be treated as an attempt. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, it has been recognised that when a person takes a clear step towards a crime, even if not completed, it is still punishable. Here, the acts were not distant or uncertain, but closely connected to the offence of rape, which is defined under the same law. This makes it clear that the law will punish acts that are very close to rape, even if someone interrupts them.
An earlier case also supports this decision. In State of Maharashtra v Mohd. Yakub[3], the Supreme Court explained that an act amounts to an “attempt” when a person goes beyond mere preparation and takes clear steps that are very close to completing the offence. The court made it clear that even if the crime is not ultimately completed, it can still be treated as an attempt if the actions show a direct move towards committing it.
Also, the law protecting children from sexual offences adds more safety. Since the victim in this case was a child, the POCSO Act also applies, which gives stronger protection and punishment. This judgment shows that any act showing a step towards rape, whether against a child or an adult, must be taken seriously. It makes the legal system stronger and ensures that offenders cannot escape punishment easily.
PRACTICAL ISSUES IN JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF ATTEMPTED OFFENCE PROVISIONS
Even after the Supreme Court made the position clearer, one major difficulty still remains in how courts understand the line between preparation and attempt. The court has explained that when an act is very close to rape and clearly shows intention, it should be treated as an attempt. But in real cases, this is not always easy to apply. Judges may look at the same fact in different ways. One may feel the act has crossed the line, while another may still treat it as something less serious. This creates inconsistency and affects how justice is delivered.
Another challenge is proving intention. In such cases, the offence is not completed, so the court has to depend on the surrounding facts and behaviour. The accused may argue that there was no plan to commit rape. When there is no evidence, it becomes difficult to prove what exactly was intended. This is even more sensitive in cases involving children, where the case may depend heavily on the victim’s statement.
There is also a concern about misuse. Once the law becomes stricter, there is a possibility that serious but unclear situations may also be treated as attempts to rape. If the law is applied without careful examination, it may lead to harsh charges even in doubtful cases. Because of this, courts have to strike a balance. The focus should remain on whether the act clearly shows a direct step towards rape and not just suspicion.
Practical issues in the system also continue. Victims may still face stress during trial, repeated questioning, and long delays. Even though the Supreme Court has stressed the need for sensitivity and proper handling of such cases, these changes may not be seen immediately everywhere. Delay in the investigation and trial weakens the evidence and affects the confidence of the victim. The judgment gives a strong direction, but its real impact depends on how it is followed in day-to-day practice.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that acts like inappropriate touching or trying to remove a child’s clothing are not mere preparation but constitute an attempt to commit rape. Such actions demonstrate clear intent and direct steps toward the crime, and recognising them as an attempt strengthens legal protection for victims under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the POCSO Act, 2012. This approach ensures that offenders cannot escape punishment simply because the crime was interrupted, reinforcing justice and the dignity of victims.
The judgment also sets a strong precedent for courts to take all steps showing criminal intent seriously, particularly in cases involving children. By clarifying the law on what constitutes an attempt to rape, the Supreme Court has provided a clearer framework for interpreting sexual offences, ensuring that the legal system can respond firmly and consistently, while highlighting the need for continued discussion on practical challenges in applying these principles.
Author: Gowri K (Saveetha School of Law, SIMATS, Chennai)
References:
[1] Akash and 2 Others v State of U P and 2 Others (2025):AHC:37075
[2] In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issue (2026) INSC 165
[3] State of Maharashtra v Mohd Yakub S/O Abdul Hamid & Ors (1980) 3 SCC 57
