The Patna High Court quashed a photo studio owner’s conviction for attempted rape, holding that the allegations constituted outraging modesty but did not satisfy the legal ingredients of attempt to rape. The Court cited absence of medical evidence and any unequivocal overt act establishing attempted rape.
The Patna High Court has quashed the conviction of a photo studio owner accused of attempting to rape a woman in 2008. The Court held that while the accused’s conduct amounted to outraging the victim’s modesty, it did not meet the legal threshold required for an offence of attempted rape. Justice Purnendu Singh acquitted the appellant, Himanshu Kr. Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak, citing the complete lack of medical evidence and the absence of an unequivocal overt act to commit rape.
The FIR was filed on January 20, 2008, concerning an incident that allegedly took place the previous day at “Chhaya Studio” in Amarpur, Banka district. According to the prosecution, the studio owner took the victim inside for photography and asked the victim’s father to wait outside to view the images on a computer monitor. The accused allegedly then locked the studio door from within.
The victim testified that the accused undressed himself, tried to remove her salwar, and forcibly molested her by pressing her chest with the intention to commit rape. When the victim screamed, her father allegedly pushed the door open. The accused then purportedly shoved the father aside and ran away.
In 2013, the trial court convicted the accused for offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 (attempt to commit rape), and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC, and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
Upon reassessment of the record, the High Court found major procedural lapses. It noted that of five witnesses, the only independent local witness turned hostile. It further observed that the Investigating Officer who had completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet was not examined in the trial. Additionally, the Court noted that no Medical Officer was examined, resulting in “a complete absence of medical evidence” to support the attempted rape allegation.
The Court also remarked that the parents of the victim were “interested witnesses”, and therefore their testimony required careful scrutiny and independent corroboration neither of which was sufficiently available.
Although the High Court accepted the broad physical sequence of events as pleaded, it drew a distinction between the ingredients of outraging a woman’s modesty and those required to prove an attempt to commit rape.
The Court held that the accused’s acts wrongful confinement, shutting the door, attempting to remove the salwar, and physically molesting the victim by pressing her chest established an offence under the law for outraging modesty, but not the offence of attempted rape.
As stated by the Court:
“In the absence of any evidence of penetration, even to the slightest extent, or any overt act unequivocally constituting an attempt to commit rape, the ingredients of Section 375 IPC, and consequently Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, are not attracted in absence of any medical corroboration”.
The Court further clarified:
“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…At best, the allegations disclose an act intended to outrage the modesty of the victim, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 354 IPC”.
The High Court concluded that even taking the prosecution case at face value, the allegations did not unmistakably establish the commission of an offence of attempt to rape. Observing that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court overturned the trial court’s 2013 decision.
Noting that the appellant had already remained in judicial custody for nearly three and a half months, the Court acquitted him of all charges.
Case Title: Himanshu Kr. Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak v. State of Bihar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE