Patna High Court Delivers Verdict on Outraging Modesty and Attempt to Rape
In a significant legal ruling, the Patna High Court has clarified the distinction between the crimes of outraging a woman’s modesty and attempting to commit rape. This decision was delivered during the case of Himanshu Kr Pathak v. The State of Bihar, presided over by Justice Purnendu Singh.
The incident, which dates back to 2008, involved a woman who accompanied her father to a photography studio in Amarpur. According to the prosecution, the studio owner, after photographing the woman, asked her father to step outside under the guise of reviewing the photograph on a computer. The accused then allegedly bolted the studio door, attempted to remove the woman’s salwar, and pressed her chest, claiming intentions to commit rape. Hearing the woman’s cries, her father attempted to intervene, prompting the accused to flee the scene.
Following these events, the accused was convicted by a trial court under Sections 376/511 (attempt to rape) and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The conviction was challenged in the Patna High Court, where Justice Singh re-evaluated the evidence.
High Court’s Findings
Upon review, the High Court found that the prosecution’s case lacked medical evidence to substantiate the charge of attempted rape. Additionally, the court noted that the investigating officer did not testify during the trial, and the case largely relied on the testimonies of the victim and her parents.
The court observed that while the accused’s actions — confining the woman, attempting to remove her salwar, and pressing her chest — were reprehensible, they did not meet the legal threshold for attempted rape. Justice Singh highlighted the absence of any evidence of penetration or other overt acts that would constitute an attempt to commit rape. The ruling noted, “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.”
More Read
Conclusion and Verdict
Justice Singh concluded that the actions in question fell under the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty, as per Section 354 IPC, rather than attempted rape. “I find that the appellant used criminal force against the victim by confining her inside the studio, closing the door, attempting to remove her salwar, and physically molesting her by pressing her chest,” the judgment stated.
Despite the identification of these actions as an offence under Section 354 IPC, the court acquitted the accused due to the original charges focusing solely on attempted rape and wrongful confinement. The prosecution’s inability to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt led to the reversal of the trial court’s decision. The High Court ordered that any fines previously paid by the accused be refunded.
[Read Judgment]
