The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the charges under Section 376 read with Section 34, 190 and 506-II of IPC were framed against the Applicants.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that both men and women can be held responsible for helping or encouraging rape under Section 109 of the IPC and can be punished for it.
The Court was reviewing a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397, along with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. The petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge, who had framed charges against the Applicants under Section 376, along with Sections 34, 190, and 506-II of the IPC.
The single bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal observed, “…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.”
Facts of the Case
In 2022, the Prosecutrix filed a complaint at the Police Station, stating that the co-accused, who lived nearby, was someone she knew. In 2021, he visited her house and proposed marriage, and she agreed.
One day, when the Prosecutrix went to the co-accused’s house and gave her consent for marriage, the Applicants forced her to go with the co-accused and locked the room, where he had physical relations with her. Later, they exchanged rings at a hotel, and the co-accused promised to marry her. On the basis of this promise, he again had physical relations with her.
After some time, the Prosecutrix’s mother passed away due to cancer, and following her death, the Applicants refused to arrange the marriage between the co-accused and the Prosecutrix.
After the case was sent to the trial court, the Applicants filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. to be discharged from the case. However, the court rejected the application and framed charges against them under Section 376, along with Sections 34, 506-II, and 190 of the IPC. The Applicants challenged this decision through a revision application.
The Applicants’ lawyer argued that it was a consensual love relationship, so the offence under Section 376 of the IPC did not apply, and the charges should be dropped. The lawyer referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra to support this argument.
On the other hand, the State’s lawyer argued that there were specific allegations against the Applicants related to helping commit rape, and the trial court had rightly framed the charges.
Reasoning of Court
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Omprakash vs. State of Haryana (2015) to highlight that, although a woman cannot be charged under Section 376 of the IPC, she can still be held accountable for abetment under Section 109 of the IPC, as abetment is a separate and distinct offence from rape.
“…I find there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. In my opinion, looking to the allegations made in the statements under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix, prima facie it seems that the applicants committed an offence under 376 r/w 109, 506 and 190 of IPC,” the Court observed.
The order was accordingly modified the order.