A criminal appeal that began with a photo studio visit gone wrong has ended with the Patna High Court setting aside a 2013 conviction. Justice Purnendu Singh, delivering the judgment on 09.07.2026, held that the prosecution could not prove the charge of attempt to rape beyond reasonable doubt, though he found enough on record to say the accused had committed a lesser offence.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to January 2008. According to the police complaint, a young woman had gone with her father to a studio in Amarpur, Banka district, to get a photograph clicked. The studio's owner allegedly took her inside, then asked her father to wait outside to view the picture on a computer screen. As soon as the father stepped out, the accused is alleged to have shut the studio door from the inside. He is then said to have started touching the woman inappropriately and tried to remove her salwar, allegedly with the intention of committing rape. On her screaming, her father pushed the door open, and the accused fled as a crowd gathered outside.
An FIR was registered a day later, and after investigation, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376/511 (attempt to rape) and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC. He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, and six months for confinement, both sentences to run together. He challenged this conviction before the High Court.
The appellant's counsel argued that the conviction was unsustainable in law, pointing out that there was an unexplained delay of a day between the alleged incident and the FIR being lodged. The State, on the other hand, maintained that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and that the offence was serious in nature.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
What the Evidence Showed
The High Court went through the testimonies of all five prosecution witnesses. Of these, the investigating officer who filed the chargesheet was never examined, and another witness turned hostile. That left the case resting mainly on the woman's own statement and her father's account, with her mother's testimony being purely hearsay since she was not present at the spot.
No medical officer was examined during the trial, meaning there was no medical evidence to back the claim of an attempted rape. The court noted this gap mattered because the case largely depended on testimonies of people with a direct interest in the outcome.
Justice Singh referred to several Supreme Court rulings, including Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), which lay down that a victim's word alone can be enough for conviction but only if her account is of "sterling quality," free of major gaps or contradictions. The bench observed that testimony falling short of this standard needs independent corroboration before a conviction can stand.
Court's Observations
The judgment drew a clear line between an attempt to commit rape and an act that merely outrages a woman's modesty. The court noted,
"In the absence of any evidence of penetration, even to the slightest extent, or any overt act unequivocally constituting an attempt to commit rape, the ingredients of Section 375 IPC... are not attracted in absence of any medical corroboration."
At the same time, the court did not let the appellant off entirely clean. It observed that confining the woman inside the studio, shutting the door, trying to remove her clothing, and touching her amounted to criminal force used with the intent to outrage her modesty acts that squarely fall under Section 354 IPC, even if they don't meet the higher threshold required for an attempted rape charge.
On the delay in filing the FIR, the court accepted the woman's explanation that she and her family had first gone to the police station on the day of the incident itself but were turned away, and the report was lodged only the next day. This, the judge said, did not amount to any real delay on the prosecution's part.
The Decision
The Patna High Court set aside the trial court's judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2013 and the sentence order dated 01.11.2013, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 376/511 IPC.
Since he was already out on bail, he was discharged from his bail bond, and any fine deposited by him was ordered to be refunded.
The appeal was allowed, and the trial court records were directed to be sent back along with a copy of the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Himanshu Kr. Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 775 of 2013
Judge: Justice Purnendu Singh
Decision Date: July 9, 2026
