Supreme Court Steps In: Controversial Patna High Court Ruling on Attempted Rape Under Scrutiny

Supreme Court Takes Notice of Patna High Court Ruling

New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings regarding a judgment from the Patna High Court that acquitted an individual previously convicted of attempted rape. The court noted that the actions described—such as trying to remove the victim's salwar, undressing himself, and physically molesting her—were more aligned with the offense of outraging a woman's modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) rather than an attempt at rape.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued a notice in this suo motu case, indicating their intent to review the contentious remarks made in the Patna High Court's ruling.

During the hearing, the CJI remarked, "There are some offending observations," addressing Bihar's Advocate General S.D. Sanjay.

The Supreme Court stated that it could only overturn these observations after hearing from the accused and instructed the Bihar government to ensure that the accused was notified through local police.

This case has been registered as Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026, titled "In Re: Order dated 09.07.2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 775/2013 and ancillary issues."

The registration of this case follows a previous Supreme Court ruling concerning an Allahabad High Court decision that clarified the distinction between preparation and an attempt to commit rape.

The Patna High Court's ruling stemmed from an appeal by Himanshu Kumar Pathak, also known as Mithiya Pathak, who had been found guilty by a trial court under Sections 376/511 and 342 of the IPC in a case from 2008 at the Amarpur police station in Bihar's Banka district.

According to the prosecution, the victim had visited the accused's photography studio with her father on January 19, 2008. After taking her photograph, the accused allegedly asked her father to check the image on a computer and locked the studio door. The victim claimed that the accused attempted to remove her salwar, undressed himself, and physically molested her with the intent to rape. When she screamed for help, her father rushed to the door, prompting the accused to flee.

The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376/511 IPC and six months under Section 342 IPC, with both sentences to run concurrently.

However, the Patna High Court, in its July 9 judgment, reevaluated the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven the elements of attempted rape.

Justice Purnendu Singh, in a single-judge bench, noted the absence of penetration evidence and highlighted that the prosecution failed to present medical evidence supporting the attempted rape claim. Additionally, the investigating officer who completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet was not called to testify during the trial.

The High Court acknowledged that the accused had confined the victim in the studio, closed the door, attempted to remove her salwar, and physically molested her by pressing her chest.

"These actions clearly demonstrate the use of criminal force against a woman with the intention, or at least the knowledge, that such actions were likely to outrage her modesty, thus fulfilling the essential elements of Section 354 IPC," the High Court stated.

It concluded that even if the allegations were fully accepted, they did not clearly establish an offense under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, but rather fell under Section 354 IPC, which pertains to assault or criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.

The Patna High Court subsequently overturned the trial court's conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of all charges and ordering the refund of any fines paid.

The Supreme Court's latest proceedings follow its July 14 ruling in another suo motu case regarding an Allahabad High Court decision in an attempted rape case.

In that instance, the apex court annulled the Allahabad High Court's ruling, which had determined that allegations of groping a minor, breaking her pajama string, and attempting to drag her under a culvert did not prima facie constitute an attempt to rape.

The Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court's reasoning as a "patently erroneous application of established criminal jurisprudence principles." It reaffirmed the distinction between "preparation" and "attempt," noting that an attempt begins immediately after preparation is complete and that the conduct alleged indicated the accused had moved beyond mere preparation.

The apex court also instructed the National Judicial Academy to form an expert committee to develop guidelines on judicial sensitivity and the approach of judges and the judicial system when handling sexual offenses and other sensitive cases involving vulnerable victims, complainants, and witnesses.