New Delhi, July 15 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the reasoning adopted by the Patna High Court in a recent judgment that held pressing a woman's breasts and attempting to remove her salwar did not amount to an attempt to rape, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant saying judges have a duty to conduct proper research before delivering such rulings. The court also directed that a handbook on judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases be followed by courts nationwide and made available on the websites of the Supreme Court and all high courts.
The observations came during the hearing of the Supreme Court's suo motu proceedings arising from the Allahabad High Court's March 17, 2025 judgment, which had ruled that pulling an 11-year-old girl's pyjama string and grabbing her breasts amounted only to preparation and not an attempt to rape. The Supreme Court had stayed that verdict on March 26, 2025 after taking suo motu cognisance and had described it as reflecting "total insensitivity".
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the Patna High Court judgment after senior advocates Shobha Gupta and H S Phoolka informed the court about it. Gupta told the bench that such orders were being passed repeatedly, including the Patna High Court's July 9 ruling. Justice V Mohana asked whether the Supreme Court's earlier directions on judicial sensitisation had been cited before the Patna High Court.
Referring to the latest ruling, the Chief Justice remarked, "There is a duty cast on judges also to do some research. The staff is doing nothing."
The Supreme Court directed that the National Judicial Academy Committee's report on judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court and all high courts. It further ordered that all courts follow the language and guidance contained in the handbook, while states must instruct police stations to use it during registration of FIRs and filing of charge sheets. The bench also said it would upload a reasoned judgment.
The Patna High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Purnendu Singh, arose from a 2008 case involving a photography studio in Amarpur, Bihar's Banka district. According to the prosecution, the studio owner locked a woman inside after asking her father to wait outside, attempted to remove her salwar, pressed her chest and allegedly intended to rape her. Hearing her cries, her father forced open the door, after which the accused fled.
A trial court convicted the accused in 2013 under Sections 376 read with 511 of the IPC for attempt to rape and Section 342 for wrongful confinement, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court found serious gaps in the prosecution's case, noting that the investigating officer and medical officer were not examined and that there was no medical evidence supporting the allegation of attempted rape. It also observed that one independent witness had turned hostile and the prosecution mainly relied on the testimonies of the survivor and her parents.
The High Court held that, even if the prosecution's allegations were accepted in full, there was no evidence of penetration or any overt act that unequivocally established an attempt to commit rape. It ruled that the accused's actions amounted to outraging a woman's modesty under Section 354 of the IPC rather than attempted rape, set aside the conviction, acquitted him of all charges, discharged his bail bonds and ordered the refund of any fine deposited.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.