The Supreme Court on July 14, criticised a recent Patna High Court judgment that ruled an accused’s alleged act of attempting to remove a woman’s salwar and physically molesting her did not constitute an offence of attempt to rape, with the Chief Justice of India raising concerns over the quality of judicial reasoning in such cases.
The observations came during the hearing of a suo motu case in which the apex court is examining judicial approaches and sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan was hearing the matter when Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta drew attention to the Patna High Court verdict.
The issue arose while the Supreme Court was already examining controversial judicial observations made in sexual offence cases, including an Allahabad High Court judgment that had earlier held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert did not amount to an offence of attempt to rape.
Referring to the Patna High Court ruling, the Chief Justice expressed concern over the apparent lack of detailed examination before such conclusions were reached.
“There is a lack of thorough research. The staff is doing nothing,” the Chief Justice remarked during the hearing, signalling the court’s dissatisfaction with the reasoning adopted in the judgment.
The Bench indicated that it would pass a detailed order addressing the observations made by the Patna High Court.
The Patna High Court’s observations came while hearing an appeal filed by a man convicted in a 2008 case involving allegations of attempted sexual assault.
According to the prosecution, the survivor had accompanied her father to a photography studio in Bihar’s Amarpur. After taking her photograph, the studio owner allegedly asked her father to wait outside, bolted the room from inside and attempted to sexually assault her.
The prosecution claimed that hearing the victim’s cries, her father rushed into the room, prompting the accused to flee.
A trial court had convicted the accused for attempt to rape as well as wrongful confinement.
However, while hearing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction for attempt to rape and held that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary for the offence.
The High Court noted the absence of medical evidence corroborating the allegation of attempted rape and observed that the investigating officer had not been examined during the trial proceedings.
The court held that there was no evidence of penetration, even to the slightest extent, nor any overt act that unequivocally established an attempt to commit rape under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment stated that in the absence of such evidence, the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC or attempt to rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC could not be sustained.
However, the High Court did not completely absolve the accused. It held that the allegations, if accepted in their entirety, clearly amounted to outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the IPC.
The court observed that confining the woman inside the studio, shutting the door, attempting to remove her salwar and pressing her chest constituted the use of criminal force intended to outrage her modesty.
The Patna High Court judgment came under scrutiny as part of the Supreme Court’s broader examination of how courts handle cases involving sexual offences and gender-sensitive issues.
During the hearing, the apex court also approved a report prepared by an Expert Committee of the National Judicial Academy aimed at improving judicial sensitivity in cases involving women and sexual violence.
The Supreme Court directed all courts across the country to strictly follow the terminology and expressions prescribed in the approved handbook.
It further instructed state governments to ensure that police personnel also adhere to the guidelines while registering First Information Reports (FIRs) and filing charge sheets.
The Bench said a detailed and reasoned judgment on the issue would be uploaded separately.
