The Supreme Court on September 23 took suo motu cognisance of a July 9 Patna High Court judgment that acquitted Himanshu Kumar Pathak, accused in a 2008 case of attempting to rape a woman inside his photography studio in Bihar’s Banka district.
The High Court had held that allegations of locking the woman inside the studio, attempting to remove her salwar, undressing himself and pressing her chest did not, on the evidence available, establish an attempt to rape, though it said the acts amounted to criminal force intended to outrage her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said the judgment contained “some offending observations” and issued notice to Pathak.
The Court also asked Bihar Advocate General S.D. Sanjay to ensure that the notice is served through the local police. Importantly, the Supreme Court said it could set aside the High Court judgment only after hearing the accused. The July judgment, therefore, remains under judicial scrutiny and has not yet been finally set aside.
Inside The Photography Studio
The case dates back to January 19, 2008, when the woman had gone with her father to Chhaya Studio in Amarpur, Banka, for a photograph. According to the prosecution case recorded in the High Court judgment, the studio owner, Pathak, allegedly asked her father to stay outside while she remained inside.
The door was allegedly closed, following which the woman said Pathak touched her, attempted to remove her salwar, undressed himself and pressed her chest. She raised an alarm, following which her father tried to enter the studio, and the accused allegedly fled after opening the door. An FIR was registered the next day under Sections 342, 376 and 511 of the IPC.
The trial court subsequently convicted Pathak in 2013 for attempt to rape and wrongful confinement, sentencing him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the attempt-to-rape charge and six months for wrongful confinement, with the sentences to run concurrently. Pathak challenged that conviction before the Patna High Court.
Why The High Court Acquitted Him
While hearing the appeal, Justice Purnendu Singh examined the prosecution evidence, which included the testimonies of the woman, her parents, police witnesses and an independent witness who turned hostile.
The High Court noted that the investigating officer who had completed the investigation was not examined and that no medical officer or medical evidence was produced.
It nevertheless recorded that the woman’s account contained allegations of being confined inside the studio, an attempt to remove her salwar and physical molestation. The key legal question was whether those acts, on the evidence presented, crossed the threshold from preparation to an attempt to rape.
The High Court concluded that they did not unequivocally establish an overt act amounting to an attempt to commit rape. At the same time, the judgment expressly said the alleged conduct constituted criminal force against a woman and fell within the scope of Section 354 IPC, which concerns assault or criminal force intended to outrage a woman’s modesty.
The Supreme Court’s latest intervention follows concerns over portions of this reasoning and language. CJI Surya Kant said, “There are some offending observations in the judgment,” while making clear that Pathak must first be heard before the judgment can be set aside.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Cases involving allegations of sexual violence require courts to balance two fundamental responsibilities: protecting survivors and ensuring that every accused receives a fair hearing under law. That makes the Supreme Court’s decision to examine the Patna High Court judgment significant, particularly because judicial language can influence how society understands sexual violence and the seriousness with which such allegations are treated.
At the same time, the distinction between attempt to rape and other sexual offences is a matter of evidence and law, and conclusions must ultimately be reached through due judicial process rather than public outrage.
Also read: ‘While Trying to Make a Reel’ Bihar CM Samrat Choudhary’s Jamui Remark Goes Viral
