A charge has been framed against the applicant no. 1 Prahalad for committing an offence under Section 376 and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Charges against all the other applicants have been framed only under section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. In this revision all the applicants claimed that the charges against them be quashed. No body appeared on behalf of the applicants. However, this Court has examined the case on merits and found from the statements made by the learned Panel Lawyer Shri Harish Agnihotri that the charge against the applicant no. 1 for rape is based on the fact that he committed sexual intercourse with the woman on a promise to marry. In other words the applicant no. 1 was willing to have sexual relations with the prosecutrix on a promise to marry with her. One of the ingredient of Section 375 IPC is that sexual intercourse should be committed against the will of the woman, therefore the requirement of Section 375 IPC is prima facie is not fulfilled. The learned Panel Lawyer argued that no marrying with the prosecutrix was a fraud committed by the applicant no. 1 and therefore the will of the prosecutrix was not her true will. This argument cannot be accepted. The fraud contemplated for obtaining consent must be searched in the cases where the consenting woman would not know the nature of the act. This is not one of those cases the applicant no. 1 Prahalad cannot therefore, be held guilty under section 376 IPC. So far as the charges against all the applicants under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned, it is based on the allegation that when the prosecutrix and her mother came to know about the breach to promise for the marriage, they went to the house of the accused persons where all of them abused the prosecutrix and her mother and stated that who would marry a prostitute like her upon which the prosecutrix committed suicide. Now it is being argued that the cause of commission of suicide was the harsh words spoken by the applicants calling her harlot. This may, however, show that the intention of the applicant was to reprimand the prosecutrix and her mother for on their asking for marriage of the prosecutrix and they could not be expected to know that by their reasonable contemplation the result would be that she would commit suicide and they would be liable for the offence under Section 306IPC. The element of abetment is an essential ingredient for framing a charge. section 107 of the ipc requires instigation on the part of the accused persons or intentional adding by any act for commission of suicide nor can the applicants said to have conspired to do anything through some harsh words extracted from their mouth, in the natural course.of event. In view of this matter even a charge under section 306 IPC is not made out against the applicants.
3. Looking to the facts that there is a delay in filing the revision, this court is of the view that delay in filing the revision hardly matter because this Court is not powerless to take suo-moto, the cognizance of revision and decide it in accordance with law. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.3.2000 framing charges against the applicants, as described in paragraph 1 of this order, is hereby set aside and the applicants are accordingly, discharged.
Comments