‘We know backlash is coming’: Village braces for fallout after SC slams HC 'no rape' ruling

In a remote village about 60 km from Kasganj town in Uttar Pradesh, a pall of gloom looms over the area like heavy, dense fog. Though the Supreme Court has stayed a controversial Allahabad high court order in a child molestation case, the family at the heart of the storm remains in hiding, the atmosphere in their village fraught with tension.The village, home to about 200 families — most of them marginal labourers and small farmers with landholdings of less than a bigha — has been thrust unwillingly into national focus after a legal ruling that appeared to trivialise the trauma of an 11-year-old Dalit girl. The child’s assault, and the judicial interpretation that followed, has ignited debate over caste, power, and the meaning of justice for India’s most vulnerable.The incident occurred on November 10, 2021. The child and her mother were walking home when two local men — Pawan Kumar (25) and Akash Singh (30), both known to the family — offered them a lift on their motorbike. The mother accepted. But not far from their home, the men stopped the bike near a culvert. What happened next, the mother later recounted, was sudden and brutal: “They grabbed my daughter’s breasts. Akash broke the string of her pyjamas. She screamed—that’s what saved her. Some people were nearby.”Shaken and enraged, the mother later went to Pawan Kumar’s house to confront him. There, she says, she was subjected to casteist slurs and threatened with a firearm. Her repeated attempts to register an FIR at the local police station were met with silence. For nearly two months, no action was taken. It was only in January 2022, after she approached a special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, that a formal complaint was accepted.The trial court took a serious view of the allegations. It concluded that the incident qualified as an attempt to commit rape or penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The court invoked Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (rape) read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act (attempt to commit an offence), and issued summons to both accused to stand trial under these severe charges.However, when the accused challenged this decision in the Allahabad high court, the case took a controversial and disheartening turn. In a judgment that drew sharp criticism from legal experts and rights activists, a single-judge bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra downgraded the charges significantly. 119702048No justiceThe high court ruled that the acts described — groping the child over her clothing and breaking the drawstring of her pyjamas — did not amount to rape or even attempted rape. It said there was no material on record to establish that the accused had made a determined effort to commit the offence of rape, a crucial legal standard when considering a charge of "attempt".“In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation,” Justice Mishra noted in his order, as cited by LiveLaw. “The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination.”He further observed: “It is not stated by witnesses that, due to this act of the accused, the victim got naked or got undressed. There is no allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault.” The judge concluded: “This fact is not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape on the victim as, apart from these facts, no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape.”Based on this reasoning, the court held that the initial charges under Section 376 and Section 18 of the POCSO Act were not justified. Instead, it directed that the accused be tried under the lesser charge of Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code (assault or use of criminal force to disrobe a woman), and Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, which pertains to aggravated sexual assault on a child under 12 and is punishable under Section 10 of the Act.The high court order reportedly also contains a glaring inconsistency about the victim’s age. It refers to her as 14 years old in one section, and "more than 11 years" in another. However, since the court invoked Section 9(m), which applies only to victims under 12, it can be inferred that the court ultimately accepted her age as between 11 and 12 years.Some reliefOn March 26 this year, the Supreme Court stayed the controversial Allahabad high court ruling that had downgraded charges in the molestation case of the 11 year old. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih issued notices to the Union government, the Uttar Pradesh government, and all parties involved in the matter. 119694010In strong and unequivocal terms, the bench condemned the high court's reasoning, calling it “inhuman” and indicative of a “total lack of sensitivity.” The apex court took suo motu cognisance of the judgment, highlighting that it was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, but one delivered four months after being reserved — implying deliberate consideration.“We are at pains to state that some observations made in the impugned order... depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment,” the bench noted. “It was not even at the spur of the moment and was delivered four months after reserving the same. Thus, there was an application of mind.”Though the Supreme Court typically refrains from granting a stay at such an early stage, the bench said it is making an exception, citing the egregious nature of the high court’s comments. “We are usually hesitant to grant a stay at this stage. But since the observations in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 are unknown to the canons of law and show an inhuman approach, we stay those observations,” the court said.The bench also directed that the Attorney General and Solicitor General assist the court in the matter, underlining the seriousness with which it is being treated. “We issue notice to the Union Government, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties before the High Court,” the order stated.The stay came just two days after a separate Supreme Court bench had declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the same Allahabad high court ruling — making the court’s March 26 action all the more significant. medium119694267Visit to the villageWhen TOI visited the village on March 27, a sense of anxiety and unease felt prevalent. On the approach road leading into the settlement, Satbir, the child’s 34-year-old uncle, flagged down the vehicle. “Don’t stop here,” he said as he climbed in. “I could be in trouble if they see me talking to anyone.”It was here, on this very stretch of road, that the girl was assaulted, he said. And since then, the family has lived in fear — not just of stigma, but of violence. “They’ve threatened us at gunpoint. They use caste slurs. Even after the Supreme Court’s stay, we know the backlash is coming,” Satbir said.In the village, everyone knows what happened. “They call her the ‘chhoti bachchi’ who was molested,” he added. “People come to our house and warn us to withdraw the case.”According to Satbir, the accused are from powerful upper-caste families, with access to legal help and licensed firearms. “We’re poor, and we have no backing. Most of us work as farm hands. Our family owns barely any land. But we chose to fight.”The toll of that decision, no doubt, has been steep. The family has borrowed Rs 2.5 lakh from private lenders to keep up with legal costs. “We have no way to repay this debt. Just look at our homes, look at our lives,” said Satbir’s 70-year-old father, sitting on a charpoy outside his thatched roof hut.“I don’t fully understand what the Supreme Court has said,” he said quietly. “But I know what the high court did. And if courts cannot protect the honour of our girls, then who will?”For now, the girl has been moved out of the village. “She’s not safe here,” said a relative. “We’ve sent her to her maternal grandparents.” Her parents — Satbir’s brother Samar and his wife — are in Delhi, dealing with the legal aftermath of the Supreme Court order.The family also says they would not have reached this point without the help of Saroj Chauhan, a local social activist who has stood by them. “This pocket of five villages has Yadavs in the minority,” Chauhan explained. “They’re often pushed to the margins, silenced. This family didn’t back down. That’s rare here.”(Names of kin changed to protect identity of the minor survivor)