New Delhi, September 23, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took suo motu cognisance of a July 9 Patna High Court judgment that acquitted a man convicted of attempting to rape a woman, after the High Court held that the alleged acts amounted to outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) rather than an attempt to rape.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice in the matter and indicated that it would examine observations made in the High Court judgment.
“There are some offending observations,” the CJI told Bihar Advocate General S.D. Sanjay during the hearing. The Bench said it could consider setting aside the observations only after hearing the accused and directed the Bihar government to ensure that notice was served on him through the local police.
The proceedings have 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 concerns Himanshu Kumar Pathak alias Mithiya Pathak, who had been convicted by a trial court under Sections 376/511 and 342 of the IPC in connection with a 2008 case registered at Amarpur police station in Bihar’s Banka district.
According to the prosecution case, the woman had accompanied her father to Pathak’s photography studio on January 19, 2008. After taking her photograph, the accused allegedly asked her father to view the image on a computer and then closed the studio door from inside.
The woman alleged that Pathak undressed himself, attempted to remove her salwar 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.
The trial court subsequently convicted Pathak 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.
The Patna High Court, however, re-examined the evidence and held on July 9 that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary for an offence of attempted rape. The single-judge Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh noted the absence of evidence of penetration and the lack of medical evidence supporting the allegation of attempted rape. It also noted that the investigating officer who had completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet was not examined during the trial.
The High Court recorded that the accused had confined the woman inside the studio, locked the door, attempted to remove her salwar and physically molested her by pressing her chest. It held that these acts established the use of criminal force with the intention, or at least knowledge, that they were likely to outrage her modesty, bringing the conduct within Section 354 IPC.
The High Court consequently set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 376/511 and acquitted the appellant of the charges.
The Supreme Court’s intervention follows its proceedings in another suo motu matter concerning an Allahabad High Court judgment on the distinction between preparation and attempt to commit rape. During those proceedings, the Patna High Court judgment was brought to the apex court’s attention.
The Supreme Court had subsequently set aside the Allahabad High Court ruling concerning allegations involving a minor and reiterated the distinction between preparation and attempt. It also directed the National Judicial Academy to constitute an expert committee to prepare guidelines concerning judicial sensitivity and the handling of sexual-offence cases involving vulnerable victims, complainants and witnesses.
The Supreme Court will now examine the Patna High Court observations after giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.
FOLLOW NOW
