Supreme Court Slams Patna High Court Over Observation That ‘Pressing Woman’s Chest, Trying to Remove Salwar’ Does Not Amount to Attempted Rape
In a strong rebuke to what it described as a troubling judicial approach in sexual offence cases, the Supreme Court has expressed serious displeasure over a recent Patna High Court judgment which held that allegations of pressing a woman’s chest and attempting to remove her salwar, without proof of penetration or an unequivocal overt act towards rape, would not constitute the offence of attempt to rape. The apex court indicated that it would closely examine the reasoning adopted by the High Court and pass an appropriate order.
The issue came before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana during the hearing of the Supreme Court’s suo motu proceedings concerning judicial sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta brought the Patna High Court’s judgment to the Court’s attention, submitting that the reasoning adopted in the judgment was deeply concerning and inconsistent with established principles governing sexual offence prosecutions.
Expressing surprise at the High Court’s observations, the Bench questioned how a court could conclude that an accused’s alleged acts of forcibly pressing a woman’s breasts and attempting to remove her clothing did not even amount to an attempt to commit rape. The Court remarked that such observations required careful scrutiny, particularly in light of the need for a sensitive and legally sound approach while adjudicating crimes against women.
The Supreme Court also voiced concern over the quality of judicial reasoning reflected in certain recent decisions dealing with sexual offences. During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that greater research and sensitivity are expected before delivering judgments in such serious matters. The Bench made it clear that courts must avoid interpretations that could undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system or diminish the seriousness of allegations involving violence against women.
The controversy stems from a judgment delivered by the Patna High Court while allowing the appeal of a man convicted in a 2008 case from Bihar’s Banka district. The High Court had held that even if the prosecution case was accepted in its entirety, the allegations of pressing the victim’s chest and attempting to remove her salwar would, at best, constitute the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and not attempt to rape under Sections 376/511 IPC, since there was no evidence of penetration or an overt act unequivocally demonstrating an attempt to commit rape.
The High Court’s ruling attracted widespread criticism from legal experts, women’s rights advocates and members of the Bar, who argued that the offence of attempt to rape must be assessed on the totality of the accused’s conduct and surrounding circumstances rather than by applying an unduly narrow interpretation focused solely on penetration. The judgment also drew comparisons with earlier controversial observations by other High Courts in sexual offence cases, prompting renewed calls for greater judicial sensitisation.
The Supreme Court’s intervention forms part of its broader effort to ensure that courts adopt a victim-centric and constitutionally informed approach while deciding cases involving sexual violence. The Bench indicated that it would examine the Patna High Court’s observations alongside the ongoing suo motu proceedings concerning judicial approaches in sexual offence matters and would issue a detailed order addressing the legal issues involved.
The proceedings are expected to have significant implications for the jurisprudence on attempt to rape and the standards governing judicial interpretation of sexual offences. The Supreme Court’s observations underscore that while the ingredients of criminal offences must undoubtedly be established in accordance with law, judicial reasoning in cases involving violence against women must remain consistent with constitutional values of dignity, equality and access to justice, while ensuring that legal standards are applied with appropriate sensitivity and without trivialising serious allegations.
