JUDGEMENTS- (Offences Affecting the Human Body)
Topic: Rape
CASE: Ram Kripal S/o Shyam Lal Charmakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
CITATION:
JUDGMENT DATE: 3rd March, 2007
SECTION 376 - IPC: Punishment for Rape.
BENCH:
- Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat
- Justice S. H. Kapadia
FACTS:
The victim had gone to the field to collect green grass. On her way back from collecting the grass, the appellant approached her and proposed sexual intercourse to which the victim protested and threatened to inform her mother. The appellant told her that he would give her Rs. 10/- to not tell her mother anything. After that, the appellant dropped the victim on the ground and removed her undergarment and penetrated her private part with his own. She cried in pain so the appellant stuffed a cloth in her mouth. After the appellant left her, she saw blood oozing out which besmeared her undergarment. After returning from the field, she narrated the incident to her brothers and their wives.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACCUSED:
1. Section 375 of IPC define rape as “A man is said to commit rape who has sexual intercourse with a woman against her will and without her consent.”
2. This argument leads to section 376 of the IPC, which states the punishment for the said crime of rape.
Judgment:
The appellant was granted leave for an appeal.
The challenge in this appeal was to the judgment rendered by a single learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, that dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Satna. Appellant was found guilty of offenses punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
ANALYSIS:
I am of the opinion that the appellant is culpable for the rape of the victim under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code because he conducted sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent and against her will. The appellant’s initial intention may not have been to rape but her considering the proposed for it first, but after her protest to the proposal, his actions indicated clear intentions to rape her. Thus, in my opinion, it is irrelevant whether he approached the victim with the intention to rape her or not, he did rape her and at that moment his intentions were to rape her. Therefore I stand with the judgment against the appellant.
