Abetment of Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Clarifies Legal Position on Women's Liability

 

Abetment of Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Clarifies Legal Position on Women's Liability

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while a woman cannot be charged with committing rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), she can be held liable for abetment of the offense under Section 109 IPC. The decision, delivered in Prashant Gupta v. State of M.P., Criminal Revision No. 4796 of 2023, underscores the legal distinction between direct commission and facilitation of an offense, particularly in cases involving sexual crimes.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein charges had been framed under Sections 376 read with 34, 190, and 506-II IPC. The accused sought modification of the charges, arguing that the framing of charges under Section 376 read with 34 IPC was erroneous.

The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR on August 21, 2022, at Police Station Chhola Mandir, District Bhopal Dehat, alleging that the co-accused had promised marriage to her on April 12, 2021, which led to a consensual relationship. On July 8, 2021, she visited the co-accused’s house and conveyed her consent for marriage to his family members, including his mother and brother (the applicants in the revision). It was alleged that the applicants forcibly sent the prosecutrix with the co-accused, who then engaged in sexual relations with her inside a closed room. Subsequent incidents of sexual relations occurred under the false promise of marriage. When the prosecutrix raised concerns with the applicants, they dismissed them, stating that premarital relations were commonplace. Following her mother's death in December 2021, the applicants refused the marriage proposal, prompting her to file a police complaint.

Legal Contentions and Arguments

The applicants sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC, contending that their names were absent from the initial complaint and surfaced only in the prosecutrix’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, suggesting an afterthought. They further argued that Section 376 IPC applies only to male perpetrators and that the trial court had erred in framing charges under Section 376 read with 34 IPC.

The prosecution countered that the charge sheet contained prima facie material against the applicants, demonstrating their active role in facilitating the offense. Relying on judicial precedents, the prosecution argued that the court, at the stage of framing charges, need only establish whether a prima facie case exists, rather than evaluating the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Court recognized that Section 376 IPC exclusively applies to male offenders but reaffirmed that women can be held liable for abetment under Section 109 IPC. It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Omprakash v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 84, which established that abetment of rape constitutes a distinct and punishable offense under Section 109 IPC. The Court also referred to State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari, (2000) 2 SCC 57, which held that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to meticulously assess the sufficiency of evidence but only determine whether a prima facie case is made out.

Consequently, the Court modified the order, directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 376 read with 109 IPC instead of Section 376 read with 34 IPC while retaining the remaining charges.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reaffirms the principle that abetment of rape is a prosecutable offense and that liability extends beyond the primary perpetrator to individuals who actively facilitate or encourage the commission of the crime. It highlights the judicial approach of distinguishing between direct liability and abetment while ensuring that all individuals complicit in the crime are held accountable.

The decision sets a precedent for interpreting criminal liability in cases where non-perpetrator parties contribute to the commission of offenses under the IPC. It also serves as a cautionary measure for individuals who may indirectly participate in crimes, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Prashant Gupta v. State of M.P. provides critical clarity on the scope of abetment under Indian criminal jurisprudence. It reinforces that while only a man can commit the offense of rape under Section 376 IPC, individuals—irrespective of gender—who aid or encourage such an act can be prosecuted under Section 109 IPC. By modifying the charges in this case, the Court has emphasized the necessity of aligning legal provisions with established judicial principles, thereby ensuring comprehensive accountability in sexual offense cases.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals for specific legal concerns.