Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Women Can Be Charged for Abetment to Rape Under IPC
Mumbai: 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, can still be held liable for abetment under Section 109 of IPC. Abetment is a separate and distinct offence from rape, and if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, then the person—whether man or woman—abetting such a crime is liable to be punished under Section 109 of IPC.”
Case Background
The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in Bhopal on August 21, 2022. 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) (repeated rape), 506-II (criminal intimidation with threat to cause death or grievous hurt), 190 (threat of injury to any person for inducing them 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 stating that “physical relations before marriage is nowadays common.”
Legal Proceedings and High Court Ruling
The trial court had initially framed charges, including rape under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC, against the accused family members. Seeking relief, they filed an application for discharge, but the trial court rejected their plea, prompting them to move the High Court.
The accused argued that the complainant was in a consensual relationship and that their names were absent in the original FIR, suggesting the allegations were an afterthought. However, the High Court dismissed this argument, noting that the complainant’s subsequent statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provided detailed allegations that warranted charges of abetment.
The court concluded, “Prima facie, it seems that the applicants committed an offence under Sections 376 read with 109, 506, and 190 of IPC.”
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on accountability in cases of sexual violence, reinforcing that individuals facilitating such crimes, regardless of gender, can be held legally responsible.
Follow us on Twitter, Google News, and Instagram and like us on Facebook for the latest updates and exciting stories.
