Patna High Court Ruling Sparks Debate on Legal Definition of Attempted Rape

Controversial Court Decision

A recent ruling by the Patna High Court has ignited a nationwide discussion regarding the legal definition of attempted rape. The court stated that actions such as confining a woman in a room, pressing her chest, and attempting to remove her salwar do not constitute an attempt at rape under IPC Section 376/51. The court emphasized that there must be clear and direct evidence showing that the accused took substantial steps towards committing rape. However, the court acknowledged that the accused's behavior was serious and disrespectful to the woman's dignity, falling under IPC Section 354.

Supreme Court's Reaction

On July 9, the court acquitted Himanshu, also known as Mithiya Pathak, from Banka. Following this decision, the Supreme Court expressed its discontent. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta raised concerns about the ruling on July 14, prompting Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud to express surprise and disappointment. He remarked that judges should be sensitive and conduct thorough research before making such decisions. The Supreme Court plans to review the Patna High Court's ruling in detail and issue a comprehensive order.

Legal Concerns Raised

Justice Purnendu Singh of the Patna High Court, in his ruling, noted the absence of medical evidence and clear physical attempts towards rape. The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns regarding the legal reasoning behind this decision, questioning the implications of stating that pressing a woman's breast and attempting to remove her salwar does not amount to an attempted rape. This discussion arose during a hearing related to a case from the Allahabad High Court, which had previously ruled that pulling a girl's pajama strings and touching her breasts does not constitute an attempt at rape.

Background of the Case

The FIR was filed on January 20, 2008, regarding an incident that occurred at 'Chhaya Studio' in Amarpur, Banka district. The prosecution alleged that the studio owner, Pathak, lured the victim inside for photography while asking her father to wait outside. Once inside, the accused locked the door and attempted to undress the victim while forcibly groping her. The victim's father managed to break down the door after hearing her screams, causing the accused to flee. In 2013, a trial court convicted the accused under IPC Sections 376 and 511 (attempted rape) and Section 342 (wrongful confinement), sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment. However, upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court found significant procedural flaws, including the retraction of statements by the sole independent witness and the lack of inquiry into the medical officer's testimony.