Read Time: 06 minutes
The court was examining whether charges of abetment of rape could be framed against the family members of the accused man
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently modified the charges against two family members of a rape accused, including his mother, ruling that while women cannot be charged with rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), they may still be prosecuted for abetment of the offence.
A Single judge bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal, presiding over the Jabalpur bench of the High Court delivered the decision. The court observed: “it is clear that a woman though cannot commit rape, but can still be held liable for abetment under Section 109 of IPC. “abetment is separate and distinct offence than rape” and if the act abetted is committed in consequences of the abetment, then the person i.e. man or woman abeting such crime is liable to be punished under Section 109 of IPC. Thus, woman and man both can definitely be held liable for abetment to rape under Section 109 of IPC and can be punished accordingly.”
The case stemmed from a First Information report (FIR) lodged on August 21, 2022, at Bhopal. The complainant alleged that the accused, with whom she was in a romantic relationship, repeatedly forced her into non-consensual physical relations. The incidents allegedly occurred at his residence and a hotel, with his mother and brother facilitating the acts. The FIR included charges under Sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman), 506-II (criminal intimidation with threat to case death or grievous hurt), 190 (threat of injury to any person for inducing to refrain from seeking legal protection), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the mother and brother locked the complainant in a room with the accused, enabling and normalizing the assaults by saying that “physical relations before marriage is now-a-days common.”
Subsequently, the trial court framed charges, including rape under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC, against the accused family members. They filed an application seeking a discharge from the case, however, the trial court rejected their application, prompting them to move the High Court for relief.
The accused applicants argued that the complainant was in a consensual relationship and that the names of the applicants were absent in the original FIR, making the allegations an afterthought.
The court, however, rejected the applicants’ argument about their omission in the FIR, stating that detailed allegations had emerged in the prosecutrix’s subsequent statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., which warranted charges of abetment.
The court noted: “prima facie it seems that the applicants committed an offence under 376 r/w 109, 506 and 190 of IPC.”
Consequently, the court modified the trial court’s order as follows:
Cause Title: Prashant Gupta and Others v State of Madhya Pradesh [CRR No. 4796 of 2023]
Appearance: Advocate Pradeep Kumar Naveriya (for the Applicants); Government Advocate C.M. Tiwari (for the State).
Please Login or Register
