Back
Acts of Molestation Do Not Constitute Attempt to Rape:
In a significant judgment clarifying the distinction between and the , the has set aside the of a studio owner accused of attempting to rape a teenager. The bench, presided over by Justice Purnendu Singh, ruled that while the actions of the accused unequivocally amounted to , they did not reach the threshold of an "" under .
Case Background The incident dates back to in Amarpur, Banka. The informant, a young victim, visited "Chhaya Studio" for photography along with her father. It was alleged that the proprietor, Himanshu Kr. Pathak, directed the father to wait outside to view a preview on a computer, then bolted the door, undressed himself, and attempted to remove the victim's salwar while molesting her.
The victim’s screams alerted her father, who forced the door open, leading the accused to flee. Following a police investigation, the had convicted the appellant for offences under , sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The matter reached the upon the appellant’s challenge to this .
Arguments Presented The Appellant contended that the was illegal and perverse, noting a suspicious delay in the registration of the and the absence of independent . The defense emphasized that the case rested solely on the testimony of the and her family, whose interest in the case necessitated extreme caution.
Conversely, the State argued that the ’s judgment was grounded in a thorough appreciation of evidence. The prosecution maintained that the testimony of a victim in such sensitive matters is of "" and does not strictly require if found credible by the bench.
Legal Analysis and Observations Justice Purnendu Singh undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence, referencing precedents such as *
