PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad excessive courtroom on Monday noticed that “little question a woman can’t commit the offence of rape however if she facilitates the act then she could be prosecuted for the offence of ‘gang rape’ below part 376D (gang rape) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in view of the amended provisions.
Elaborating the provisions of part 375 (rape) and 376 (punishment for rape) of the IPC referring to the offence of rape, as amended in the 12 months 2013, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected the plea {that a} woman can’t be prosecuted for the alleged fee of the offence of gang rape.
With these observations, the courtroom dismissed an utility filed below part 482 (inherent powers of excessive courtroom) of felony process code (CrPC) filed by one Suneeta Pandey, who had challenged a summoning order handed by the further district and classes judge-Ist, Siddharth Nagar, to face trial below sections 376D (gang rape), 212 (harbouring offender) of IPC in reference to the alleged rape case of a 15-year-old lady.
“A woman can not commit the offence of rape however if she facilitated the act of rape with a bunch of individuals then she could be prosecuted for gang rape in view of the amended provisions,” noticed the courtroom whereas rejecting the plea of the woman applicant.
Making an allowance for the information of the case, the courtroom, at the outset famous that the argument {that a} woman can’t be prosecuted for gang rape is just not right as per the amended provisions of sections associated to rape, which pertains to the offence of rape.
The courtroom noticed that although it’s clear by the non-ambiguous language of part 375 of IPC {that a} woman can’t commit rape as the part particularly states that the act of rape can solely be carried out by a ‘man’ and never by ‘a woman’, the identical is just not the case with part 376D (gang rape) of IPC.
The incident came about in June 2015 and FIR was lodged by the father of the lady towards unknown individuals in July 2015 below sections 363 (punishment for kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping, abduction or inducing woman to compel her marriage, and so on.) IPC, alleging therein that somebody has enticed his daughter aged about 15 years and took her with him.
In her assertion earlier than the courtroom below part 164 of the Legal Process Code, the sufferer acknowledged that the applicant was concerned in the alleged incident. Nevertheless, the applicant was not named in the cost sheet. Thereafter, the father of the sufferer filed an utility below part 319 CrPC for summoning the applicant and the courtroom under allowed the mentioned plea.
Pursuant to this, the applicant moved the current utility earlier than the excessive courtroom in search of to quash the summoning order in addition to to remain additional proceedings in the case on the floor that being a woman, no offence below Part 376D (gang rape) of IPC is made out towards her, therefore she has been wrongly summoned by the trial courtroom.
Elaborating the provisions of part 375 (rape) and 376 (punishment for rape) of the IPC referring to the offence of rape, as amended in the 12 months 2013, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected the plea {that a} woman can’t be prosecuted for the alleged fee of the offence of gang rape.
With these observations, the courtroom dismissed an utility filed below part 482 (inherent powers of excessive courtroom) of felony process code (CrPC) filed by one Suneeta Pandey, who had challenged a summoning order handed by the further district and classes judge-Ist, Siddharth Nagar, to face trial below sections 376D (gang rape), 212 (harbouring offender) of IPC in reference to the alleged rape case of a 15-year-old lady.
“A woman can not commit the offence of rape however if she facilitated the act of rape with a bunch of individuals then she could be prosecuted for gang rape in view of the amended provisions,” noticed the courtroom whereas rejecting the plea of the woman applicant.
Making an allowance for the information of the case, the courtroom, at the outset famous that the argument {that a} woman can’t be prosecuted for gang rape is just not right as per the amended provisions of sections associated to rape, which pertains to the offence of rape.
The courtroom noticed that although it’s clear by the non-ambiguous language of part 375 of IPC {that a} woman can’t commit rape as the part particularly states that the act of rape can solely be carried out by a ‘man’ and never by ‘a woman’, the identical is just not the case with part 376D (gang rape) of IPC.
The incident came about in June 2015 and FIR was lodged by the father of the lady towards unknown individuals in July 2015 below sections 363 (punishment for kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping, abduction or inducing woman to compel her marriage, and so on.) IPC, alleging therein that somebody has enticed his daughter aged about 15 years and took her with him.
In her assertion earlier than the courtroom below part 164 of the Legal Process Code, the sufferer acknowledged that the applicant was concerned in the alleged incident. Nevertheless, the applicant was not named in the cost sheet. Thereafter, the father of the sufferer filed an utility below part 319 CrPC for summoning the applicant and the courtroom under allowed the mentioned plea.
Pursuant to this, the applicant moved the current utility earlier than the excessive courtroom in search of to quash the summoning order in addition to to remain additional proceedings in the case on the floor that being a woman, no offence below Part 376D (gang rape) of IPC is made out towards her, therefore she has been wrongly summoned by the trial courtroom.