The Patna High Court has cleared a photography studio owner of attempted rape charges dating back to 2008, ruling that allegations of outraging a woman’s modesty do not legally substantiate an attempt to commit rape.
Justice Purnendu Singh overturned the 2013 conviction of Himanshu Kumar Pathak, also known as Mithiya Pathak, on July 9. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, noting that even if the allegations were accepted entirely, they would at most constitute an offense of using criminal force to outrage a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, rather than attempted rape.
The court highlighted critical gaps in the prosecution’s evidence, pointing out that the investigating officer who completed the inquiry was never called to testify, and no medical professional was presented to provide medical evidence.
Details Of The Prosecution Case
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on January 19, 2008, at Chhaya Studio in Amarpur. The complainant and her father had visited the studio to take a photograph. Pathak, the studio owner, allegedly asked the father to wait outside under the pretense of showing the daughter the photograph on a computer.
Once the father left, Pathak reportedly locked the door, attempted to remove the woman’s salwar, undressed himself, and physically molested her. The woman called for help, prompting her father to force the door open, after which the accused fled the scene. An official complaint was filed the following day.
Trial Court Conviction And Appeal
Prior to this appeal, an Additional Sessions Judge in Banka had convicted Pathak in 2013 of attempted rape and wrongful confinement. The trial court had sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of 5,000 rupees, in addition to a concurrent six-month prison term for wrongful confinement.
In the High Court judgment, Justice Singh explained that the elements required for attempted rape under the law were not met because there was no proof of penetration or any other physical action that clearly pointed to rape. While the actions of locking the victim inside and molesting her met the criteria for outraging her modesty under Section 354, they did not prove an attempt to commit rape under Sections 375 and 376.
The High Court also noted that the prosecution examined five witnesses, including the complainant and her parents. However, an independent witness turned hostile during the trial, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
