Back
Attempting to Remove Salwar, Pressing Chest Not : Takes Cognisance of Patna HC Ruling
The on Wednesday took cognizance of a judgment that held that allegations of attempting to remove a woman’s salwar and pressing her chest do not constitute an . A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana flagged “some offending observations” in the High Court’s ruling and issued notice to the accused.
The development came close on the heels of the ’s earlier intervention in a similar ruling, where the court had set aside a judgment that held grabbing the breasts of a minor girl and attempting to drag her under a culvert did not amount to . Senior advocates and drew the ’s attention to the ’s order during proceedings in that matter.
The Allegations
The case dates back to , when a woman accompanied her father to Chhaya Studio in Amarpur, Bihar, owned by the appellant Himanshu Kr. Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak. According to the prosecution, Pathak took the woman inside the studio, clicked her photograph, and then asked her father to step outside to view the picture on a computer. He then bolted the door from inside, undressed himself, and attempted to remove the woman’s salwar while pressing her chest. When she screamed, her father forced the door open, and the accused fled as a crowd gathered.
A trial court convicted Pathak under and 342 () of the , sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The , however, set aside the conviction on .
High Court’s Reasoning
Justice Purnendu Singh, who authored the judgment, held that the prosecution had failed to establish an . “In the absence of any evidence of , even to the slightest extent, or any overt act unequivocally constituting an , the ingredients of , and consequently , are not attracted,” the court observed.
The High Court noted that the victim’s testimony, while consistent, lacked and medical evidence. It cited several precedents, including , , and , to hold that while the sole testimony of a victim in sexual offences can sustain a conviction, it must be of “.” The court found that the prosecution witnesses—the victim’s parents—were and that the investigating officer had not been examined.
Concluding that the acts attributed to the appellant—confining the victim, locking the door, attempting to remove her salwar, and pressing her chest—fell under ( with intent to outrage modesty) rather than an , the High Court acquitted Pathak of the principal charges.
Steps In
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant told Bihar Advocate General , “There are some offending observations in the judgment. We will be able to set aside these only after hearing the accused.” The court directed the state to ensure service of notice on the accused through local police and listed the matter for further consideration.
The ’s action underscores its concern over judicial reasoning that may trivialize sexual violence. The court had earlier, while setting aside the ruling, issued guidelines on sensitively handling sexual offences and cautioned against reliance on .
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
“I find that the appellant used against the victim by confining her inside the studio, closing the door, attempting to remove her salwar, and physically molesting her by pressing her chest. These acts clearly establish the use of 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 .”
-
“In light of the settled principles of law governing the distinction between an offence of and an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman, it appears that, even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, the acts attributed to the appellant… do not unequivocally establish the commission of an offence punishable under .”
-
“The victim (P.W.-3) has consistently deposed that… the accused asked her father to remain outside on the pretext of viewing the photograph on the computer, closed the door of the studio from inside, attempted to remove her salwar, undressed himself, and forcibly molested her with the intention of committing rape.”
What’s Next?
The will now examine whether the correctly applied the legal test for and whether its observations withstand scrutiny in light of the law governing sexual offences. The outcome could have significant implications for how courts evaluate allegations of sexual assault that fall short of completed rape but involve forceful physical acts. The case has been registered as .
