The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed serious concern over a recent Patna High Court judgment which held that allegations of confining a woman, pressing her chest and attempting to remove her salwar did not constitute the offence of attempt to rape, but only amounted to outraging her modesty under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The issue was brought to the notice of a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana by Senior Advocates Shobha Gupta and H.S. Phoolka during the hearing of the Supreme Court’s suo motu proceedings concerning judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta informed the Bench that despite the Supreme Court having earlier set aside a similar judgment of the Allahabad High Court, another High Court had delivered a comparable verdict on almost identical facts. She submitted that such orders continued to be passed even after the apex court had clarified the legal position in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.
Taking note of the submission, the Bench questioned the judicial reasoning adopted by the Patna High Court. The Chief Justice orally observed that judges must undertake proper legal research before delivering judgments and indicated that the Supreme Court would pass an appropriate order regarding the Patna High Court decision.
The observations came while the Supreme Court was hearing its suo motu case initiated after the Allahabad High Court’s March 2025 judgment, which had held that pulling the drawstring of a minor girl’s pyjama, grabbing her breasts and dragging her beneath a culvert did not amount to an attempt to rape. The apex court had subsequently set aside that judgment and directed the National Judicial Academy (NJA) to prepare comprehensive guidelines to promote judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court approved the report submitted by the Expert Committee of the National Judicial Academy containing guidelines on judicial sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences. The Court directed that the approved handbook be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court and all High Courts.
It further directed all courts across the country to strictly follow the terminology and principles contained in the handbook while dealing with sexual offence cases. The States were also directed to issue appropriate instructions to all police stations to adhere to the handbook while registering First Information Reports (FIRs) and filing charge sheets. The Court indicated that a detailed reasoned judgment would also be uploaded.
The Patna High Court judgment under scrutiny arose from an appeal filed by Himanshu Kumar Pathak, also known as Mithiya Pathak, who had been convicted by a trial court for attempt to commit rape under Sections 376 read with 511 of the IPC and wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC in connection with a 2008 incident at a photography studio in Amarpur, Banka district of Bihar.
According to the prosecution, the victim had accompanied her father to the studio for photographs. The accused allegedly asked the father to wait outside on the pretext of viewing the photograph on a computer, locked the studio door from inside, removed his own clothes, attempted to remove the victim’s salwar and pressed her chest with the intention of committing rape. Hearing her cries, the victim’s father forced open the door, following which the accused allegedly pushed him aside and fled from the spot.
In 2013, the trial court convicted the accused for attempt to rape and wrongful confinement and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
However, while deciding the criminal appeal, Justice Purnendu Singh of the Patna High Court re-evaluated the evidence and found significant deficiencies in the prosecution case.
The High Court noted that the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet had not been examined during trial, no medical officer had been examined, and there was no medical evidence corroborating the allegation of attempted rape. It also observed that the only independent witness had turned hostile, while the victim’s parents were interested witnesses whose testimony required careful scrutiny.
The High Court held that although the allegations, if accepted, established wrongful confinement, use of criminal force, pressing the victim’s chest and attempting to remove her salwar, these acts did not amount to an unequivocal overt act constituting an attempt to commit rape. It concluded that, in the absence of evidence indicating penetration or any clear act towards commission of rape, the ingredients of Sections 375 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC were not attracted.
Consequently, it set aside the conviction for attempt to rape while holding that the alleged acts constituted the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 IPC.
The post Supreme Court raises concern over Patna High Court verdict in molestation case appeared first on India Legal.