Supreme Court of India Pulls Up Patna High Court Over ‘Grabbing Breast Not Rape Attempt’ Order

Supreme Court of India Pulls Up Patna High Court Over ‘Grabbing Breast Not Rape Attempt’ Order

The Supreme Court today 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.

The report was prepared in the suo motu case arising from the Allahabad High Court’s March 17, 2025 order that had held that pulling a girl’s pyjama string and grabbing her breasts did not amount to an attempt to rape.

Senior lawyer Shobha Gupta told the Supreme Court that this has been happening every now and then, including an order by the Patna High Court on July 9, which said that removing a woman’s salwar and pressing her chest were not attempt to rape.

Justice V Mohana asked whether the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Allahabad High Court matter, which directed sensitisation of judges on the issue, was cited in the Patna High Court.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, referring to the Patna High Court order, pointed out there is a duty cast on judges also to do some research. “The staff is doing nothing,” he said.

Also Read: No Mandatory Appearance at Every Hearing After Bail on Sentence Suspension: Supreme Court Of India

“It is directed that all courts shall follow the expression contained in the handbook. States to issue instructions to all police stations to follow handbooks while registering FIR and filing chargesheet. we will upload a reasoned judgment also,” the Supreme Court said.

The Patna High Court recently held that removing a woman’s salwar and pressing her chest is not sufficient to prove an attempt to rape. Justice Purnendu Singh held that if a person removed the woman’s salwar and pressed her chest, the acts would amount to the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty and not attempt to rape, which carries a significantly higher punishment.

The Patna High Court made the observation while setting aside a man’s conviction for attempt to rape.

Read More Alerts

The case arose from a 2008 incident in which a woman alleged that she had accompanied her father to a photography studio in Amarpur. According to the prosecution, after taking her photograph, the studio owner asked her father to wait outside on the pretext of viewing the photograph on a computer, bolted the studio door from inside and tried to sexually assault her. Her father rushed to the door after hearing her cries, after which the accused fled.

After an FIR was filed and investigation, a trial court convicted the accused under sections for attempt to rape and wrongful confinement of the Indian Penal Code. He challenged the conviction before the high court.

After re-appreciating the evidence, the high court found there was no medical evidence on record to support the allegation of attempt to rape. It also noted the investigating officer was not examined during trial and that the prosecution substantially rested on the testimonies of the survivor and her parents.

On the facts of the case, the high court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence of attempt to rape. “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, and consequently Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, are not attracted in absence of any medical corroboration,” the high court said.

It held that even if the prosecution case was accepted in its entirety, the allegations squarely made out the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the IPC.

“I find that the appellant used criminal force against the survivor by confining her inside the studio, closing the door, attempting to remove her salwar, and physically molesting her by pressing her chest. These acts clearly establish the use of criminal force upon a woman with the intention, or at least the knowledge, that such acts were likely to outrage her modesty,” the high court said.