New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday took suo motu cognisance of a Patna High Court judgment that acquitted a man convicted of attempted rape, after observing that the allegations — including an attempt to remove the victim’s salwar, undressing himself and physically molesting her — constituted an offence of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the IPC rather than an attempt to commit rape.
A Bench of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice in the suo motu case and indicated that it would examine the controversial observations made in the Patna High Court judgment.
“There are some offending observations,” the CJI-headed Bench told Bihar Advocate General S.D. Sanjay during the hearing.
It said that the Supreme Court would be able to set aside the observations only after hearing the accused and directed the Bihar government to ensure that the accused concerned was served with the top court’s notice through the local police.
The matter 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 case was registered pursuant to the direction of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) following the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in the suo motu proceedings concerning an Allahabad High Court judgment on the distinction between preparation and attempt to commit rape.
The Patna High Court judgment arose from an appeal filed by Himanshu Kumar Pathak alias Mithiya Pathak, who had been convicted by the trial court under Sections 376/511 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with a 2008 case registered at Amarpur police station in Bihar’s Banka district.
According to the prosecution’s case, the victim had accompanied her father to the accused’s photography studio in Amarpur January 19, 2008. After taking her photograph, the accused allegedly asked her father to view the image on a computer and closed the studio door from inside. The victim alleged that the accused attempted to remove her salwar, undressed himself, and physically molested her with the intention of committing rape. After she raised an alarm, her father reached the door, following which the accused opened it and fled from the studio.
The trial court subsequently convicted the accused and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376/511 IPC and six months’ imprisonment under Section 342 IPC, with the sentences to run concurrently.
However, the Patna High Court, in its judgment passed July 9, re-appreciated the evidence and held that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients of attempt to rape.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh observed that there was no evidence of penetration and observed that the prosecution had not produced medical evidence in support of the allegation of attempted rape. It also recorded that the investigating officer who had completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet was not examined during the trial.
The High Court observed that the accused had confined the victim inside the studio, closed the door, attempted to remove her salwar and physically molested her by pressing her chest.
“These acts clearly establish the use of criminal force upon a woman with the intention, or at least the knowledge, that such acts were likely to outrage her modesty, thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC,” the High Court said.
It concluded that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not unequivocally establish an offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and instead fell within the ambit of Section 354 IPC, relating to assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
The Patna High Court subsequently set aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant of all the charges. It also directed that any fine deposited by him be refunded.
The Supreme Court’s latest proceedings come against the backdrop of its July 14 judgment in another suo motu case concerning an Allahabad High Court ruling in an attempt-to-rape case.
In that case, the apex court had set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment which had held that allegations of grabbing a minor’s breasts, breaking her pyjama string, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert did not prima facie constitute an attempt to rape.
The Supreme Court had held that the Allahabad High Court’s reasoning was based on a “patently erroneous application of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence”. It had reiterated the distinction between “preparation” and “attempt”, observing that an attempt begins immediately after completion of preparation and that the conduct alleged in that case indicated that the accused had proceeded beyond the stage of preparation.
The apex court had also directed the National Judicial Academy to constitute an expert committee to prepare guidelines on judicial sensitivity and the approach of judges and the judicial system while dealing with sexual offences and other sensitive cases involving vulnerable victims, complainants and witnesses.
