Case Note & Summary
The present criminal revision application was filed by the accused (applicants) against the order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, rejecting their discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2009. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 376, 318, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant alleged that accused No.1, a retired lecturer aged about 65 years, raped her and she became pregnant, and that accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (his son, daughter-in-law, and wife) threatened her. The accused sought discharge on the ground that the prosecution evidence did not prima facie make out any offence. The High Court noted that the medical report from General Hospital, Amravati showed no active sperm in the semen of accused No.1, making it improbable that he could have impregnated the complainant. Further, the complainant's mother had given consent for the termination of pregnancy, which negated the offence under Section 318 IPC. The court also observed that the offence under the SC/ST Act was not attracted as there was no evidence that the alleged rape was committed because the complainant belonged to a particular caste. The court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the discharge application and allowed the revision, setting aside the impugned order and discharging all the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 227 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction; if not, the accused is entitled to discharge. Held that the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application as the medical report showed no active sperm in accused No.1's semen, making pregnancy from him improbable, and the complainant's mother had consented to the abortion, negating Section 318 IPC. (Paras 3-5) B) Indian Penal Code - Rape - Section 376 - Lack of Evidence - The allegation of rape must be supported by credible evidence; here, the medical evidence contradicted the possibility of pregnancy from accused No.1, and there was no evidence of force or lack of consent. Held that no prima facie case for rape was made out. (Paras 3-5) C) SC/ST Act - Section 3(2)(v) - Caste-Based Offence - The offence under the SC/ST Act requires that the crime was committed because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Held that the mere fact that the complainant belongs to a particular caste does not attract the Act unless the offence was motivated by caste. (Para 4) D) Indian Penal Code - Abortion - Section 318 - Consent - The offence of causing miscarriage without consent is not made out if the woman's guardian consented. Held that since the complainant's mother gave consent for termination, Section 318 IPC is not attracted. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused are entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the prosecution evidence does not prima facie make out the offences alleged under Sections 376, 318, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, and discharged all the applicants/accused from the offences in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2009.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Rape under Section 376 IPC
- SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(v)
- Abortion under Section 318 IPC
- Consent for medical termination of pregnancy
