The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a photo studio owner accused of attempting to rape a woman in 2008.
Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak), noting the complete absence of medical corroboration and the lack of an unequivocal overt act to commit rape.
The victim deposed that the accused undressed himself, attempted to remove her salwar, and forcibly molested her by pressing her chest with the intention to commit rape.
Furthermore, no Medical Officer was examined, which the Court said resulted in a complete absence of medical evidence to substantiate the attempted rape charge.
Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of attempted rape beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the 2013 trial court judgment.
The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a photo studio owner accused of attempting to rape a woman in 2008. The Court opined that acts of confining the victim, physically molesting her by pressing her chest, and attempting to remove her lower clothing (salwar) constitute the offence of outraging her modesty, but do not attract the charge of attempted rape.
Justice Purnendu Singh acquitted the appellant (Himanshu Kr. Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak), noting the complete absence of medical corroboration and the lack of an unequivocal overt act to commit rape.
What were the allegations against the accused?
The FIR was lodged on January 20, 2008, regarding an incident that occurred the previous day at 'Chhaya Studio' in Amarpur, Banka district.
The prosecution alleged that the owner, Pathak, took the victim inside for photography and asked her father to wait outside to view the image on a computer monitor. The accused then locked the studio door from the inside.
The victim deposed that the accused undressed himself, attempted to remove her salwar, and forcibly molested her by pressing her chest with the intention to commit rape.
Hearing her cries, the victim's father forcefully pushed the door open; the accused then violently shoved him aside and fled.
In 2013, a trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 (attempt to commit rape) and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court identified significant procedural lapses. The Court observed that, out of five witnesses, the sole independent local witness turned hostile, and the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, was not examined during the trial.
Furthermore, no Medical Officer was examined, which the Court said resulted in a complete absence of medical evidence to substantiate the attempted rape charge.
The Court noted that because the victim’s parents were "interested witnesses", their testimony required careful scrutiny and independent corroboration, both of which were lacking.
Why did High Court set aside conviction?
While the High Court accepted the physical sequence of events, it drew a clear legal distinction between the use of criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty (Section 354 IPC) and an attempt to commit rape.
The Court observed that the accused did use criminal force as he confined the victim, closed the door, attempted to remove her salwar, and physically molested her by pressing her chest, however, these acts satisfied the ingredients of outraging modesty, rather than attempted rape.
The Court stated "In the absence of any evidence of penetration, even to the slightest extent, or any overt act unequivocally constituting an attempt to commit rape, the ingredients of Section 375 IPC, and consequently Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, are not attracted in absence of any medical corroboration".
The Court further clarified "These acts clearly establish the use of criminal force upon a woman with the intention, or at least the knowledge, that such acts were likely to outrage her modesty...At best, the allegations disclose an act intended to outrage the modesty of the victim, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 354 IPC".
The Court was of the view that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, the acts as alleged in the FIR and deposed to by the victim, do not unequivocally establish the commission of an offence pf attempt to rape.
Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of attempted rape beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the 2013 trial court judgment.
The appellant, who the Court noted had previously remained in judicial custody for nearly three and a half months, was acquitted of all charges.
Case Title: Himanshu Kr. Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak v. State of Bihar
Date of Judgment: July 9, 2026
Bench: Justice Purnendu Singh
