Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the accused, Vilas Bablo K. Naik, challenging an order dated 8-9-2006 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji, directing framing of charges under Sections 376/511, 342, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was prosecuted by Mapusa Police Station on a chargesheet for offences under Sections 376, 342, and 506(ii) IPC. Since the offence under Section 376 IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed. Arguments were heard before framing of charge. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed two points for determination: first, whether a prima facie case of rape was made out, and second, whether a prima facie case of wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation was made out. The judge answered both points in the affirmative but concluded that the offence disclosed was one of attempt to commit rape punishable under Section 376/511 IPC, not rape. The accused challenged this order in revision. The High Court considered the submissions of the accused's counsel, Mr. Nitin Sardessai, and the Public Prosecutor, Mr. C. A. Ferreira. The court found that the material on record did not establish a prima facie case of attempt to commit rape, as the evidence only indicated preparation and not commencement of penetration. Consequently, the charge under Section 376/511 IPC was quashed. However, the charges under Sections 342 and 506(ii) IPC were upheld as no serious dispute was raised regarding them. The revision was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Commit Rape - Prima Facie Case - Section 376/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court examined whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of attempt to commit rape. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Section 376/511 IPC, but the High Court found that the evidence did not show commencement of penetration, only preparation. Held that the charge under Section 376/511 IPC was not sustainable and was quashed. (Paras 2-3) B) Criminal Law - Wrongful Confinement and Criminal Intimidation - Prima Facie Case - Sections 342 and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court noted that no serious dispute was raised regarding the framing of charges under Sections 342 and 506(ii) IPC, and the same were upheld. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in framing a charge under Section 376/511 IPC for attempt to commit rape when the material on record did not disclose a prima facie case of attempt.
Final Decision
The revision is partly allowed. The charge under Section 376/511 IPC is quashed. The charges under Sections 342 and 506(ii) IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Prima facie case for attempt to rape requires evidence of commencement of penetration
- not mere preparation
- Section 376/511 IPC
- Section 342 IPC
- Section 506(ii) IPC
