The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns over a recent Patna High Court judgment that ruled that pressing a woman’s breasts and attempting to remove her salwar did not amount to an attempt to rape.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, took note of the Patna High Court ruling after senior advocates Shobha Gupta and H.S.
In the verdict, Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a photo studio owner accused of attempting to rape a woman in 2008.
Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court identified significant procedural lapses.
Case Title: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns over a recent Patna High Court judgment that ruled that pressing a woman’s breasts and attempting to remove her salwar did not amount to an attempt to rape. The top court questioned the judicial reasoning behind the verdict as CJI Surya Kant said that judges must also do some research before passing such decisions.
The observations came during the hearing of the Supreme Court’s suo motu case arising from the Allahabad High Court's March 17, 2025 order that had held that pulling a girl's pyjama string and grabbing her breasts did not amount to an attempt to rape.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, took note of the Patna High Court ruling after senior advocates Shobha Gupta and H.S. Phoolka brought it to the court’s attention.
Supreme Court has also directed that the National Judicial Academy Committee's report on judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court and all high courts. "It is directed that all courts shall follow the expression contained in the handbook. States to issue instructions to all police stations to follow handbooks while registering FIR and filing chargesheet. we will upload a reasoned judgment also," the bench has ordered.
In the verdict, 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.
High 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 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.
Case Title: 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
Hearing Date: July 15, 2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana
