In its July 9 judgment, the Patna High Court re-examined the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary elements to prove the charge of attempted rape.
Share Article
https://www.india.com/news/india/supreme-court-patna-high-court-rape-victim-surya-kant-joymalya-bagchi-v-mohana-himanshu-kumar-pathak-bihar-crime-samrat-chaudhury-indian-panel-code-8529487/
Image for representational purposes
New Delhi: The Supreme Court took cognisance on its own of a controversial Patna High Court judgment on rape and issued notice to the court’s registry in the matterThe top court said that there were offending observations in the verdictThe Patna High Court on July 9 acquitted a man accused of rape, maintaining that that attempting to remove a woman’s salwar and pressing her chest does “not unequivocally establish” an attempt to rape.
On Wednesday, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana exercised its suo motu jurisdiction and said there are some offending observations in the judgmentThe Patna High Court, while setting aside the conviction of a man accused of attempting to sexually assault a client inside his photography studio, had held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegationsIt observed that even if its case were accepted “in its entirety”, it would, “at best”, make out an offence of assault or criminal force intended to outrage a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the IPC.
Read more:
Delhi Pollution Update: Schools asked not to hold sports competitions in November-December
What is the complete matter?
The Patna High Court judgment came on an appeal filed by Himanshu Kumar Pathak, alias Mithiya PathakA lower court had convicted him under Sections 376/511 and 342 of the IPC in a case registered in 2008 at Amarpur police station in Bihar’s Banka district.
According to the prosecution, the victim had gone to the accused’s photography studio in Amarpur with her father on January 19, 2008After taking her photograph, the accused allegedly asked her father to view the picture on a computer and then locked the studio door from inside.
The victim alleged that the accused tried to remove her clothes with the intention of committing rape, took off his own clothes and physically molested herWhen the victim raised an alarm, her father reached the doorThe accused then opened the door and fled from the studio.
The trial court subsequently convicted the accused and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment under Section 376/511 of the IPC and six months’ imprisonment under Section 342Both sentences were to run concurrently.
What did the High Court rule?
In its judgment delivered on July 9, the Patna High Court reassessed the evidence and held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients required to prove an attempt to rape.
A single bench of Justice Purnendu Singh observed that there was no evidence of penetration and that the prosecution had not produced any medical evidence in support of the allegation of attempted rape.
The High Court also noted that the investigating officer, who had completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, had not been examined during the trialThe court observed that the accused had confined the victim inside the studio, locked the door, attempted to remove her clothes and physically molested her.
The High Court said that these acts clearly established that criminal force had been used against the woman with the intention of outraging her modesty, or at least with the knowledge that such acts were likely to outrage her modestyTherefore, the court held that the acts fulfilled the essential ingredients of Section 354 of the IPC.
The High Court consequently concluded that even if all the allegations were accepted as true, they did not clearly establish the offence of attempted rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPCAccording to the High Court, the case fell within the scope of Section 354 of the IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force against a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty.
The Patna High Court then set aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant of all chargesIt also directed that any fine deposited by the accused be refunded.
