Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Suyog s/o Dinkarrao Vyas, a medical practitioner, filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, framing charges against him under Sections 376, 328, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Sessions Case No.163 of 2009. The revision was filed after the trial court framed charges despite inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statement. The prosecutrix (Respondent No.2) had initially stated in her complaint and under Section 164 CrPC that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her without consent, but during her examination as PW3 before the trial court, she stated that no such act occurred. The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in framing charges without considering this material inconsistency. The State and the prosecutrix opposed the revision, contending that the charges were correctly framed. The High Court examined the record and found that the prosecutrix's evidence before the court contradicted her earlier statements regarding the core allegation of rape. The court held that for framing charges under Section 227 CrPC, the court must be satisfied that there is strong suspicion that the accused committed the offence. Since the prosecutrix herself denied the occurrence of sexual intercourse, the charge under Section 376 could not be sustained. Similarly, the court found that the allegations under Sections 328, 354, and 506 were not supported by sufficient material to justify framing of charges. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order framing charges, and directed the trial court to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Framing of Charges - Standard of Proof - The court must consider whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence, not whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. The revisional court can interfere if the trial court has not applied its mind properly. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Rape - Consent - Inconsistency in Prosecutrix's Statement - Where the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC and her evidence before the court are inconsistent regarding the fact of sexual intercourse, the charge under Section 376 cannot be sustained. (Paras 5-8) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 328 - Administering Stupefying Substance - Requirement of Intent - The charge under Section 328 requires that the substance was administered with intent to cause hurt or to enable the commission of an offence. Mere allegation of giving a cold drink without proof of intent is insufficient. (Para 9) D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Assault or Criminal Force to Outrage Modesty - Essential Ingredients - The charge requires that the accused assaulted or used criminal force with the intention or knowledge that it would outrage the modesty of the woman. The court must examine whether the alleged acts constitute such an offence. (Para 10) E) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 - Criminal Intimidation - Threat to Cause Injury - The charge requires a threat to cause injury to the person, reputation, or property of the complainant. The court must assess whether the alleged threat meets this standard. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in framing charges under Sections 376, 328, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner based on the material available on record.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order framing charges is set aside. The trial court is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Framing of charges requires strong suspicion
- not prima facie proof
- revisional court can interfere if charges are framed without proper application of mind
- inconsistency in prosecutrix's statement can affect framing of charges
- Section 376 IPC requires proof of sexual intercourse without consent
- Section 328 IPC requires administration of stupefying substance with intent to cause hurt
- Section 354 IPC requires assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty
- Section 506 IPC requires criminal intimidation.
