1997 (3) TMI 616 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Framing of charges u/s 376 IPC.
2. Application of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges.
4. High Court's quashing of charges and discharge of accused.

Summary:

1. Framing of Charges u/s 376 IPC:
The case involved allegations against Respondent No.2, a spiritual teacher, for committing rape on three girls, Meera, Hema, and Sulakshana, with the assistance of his disciples (Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 7). The charges framed included multiple instances of rape committed by Respondent No.2 by posing as a divine spirit. The charges were framed u/s 376 IPC, and the other respondents were charged with abetment u/s 109, 114 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Application of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The High Court quashed the charges, stating that the charges framed were in contravention of Section 219 CrPC, which limits the number of offences that can be charged together. The High Court held that the five acts of rape committed over several years on three different girls violated this provision.

3. Evaluation of Evidence at the Stage of Framing Charges:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction at the stage of Section 227 CrPC by sifting and weighing the evidence as if deciding the guilt of the accused. The correct legal position, as established in Niranjan Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bijjaya, is that at the stage of framing charges, the court should only evaluate whether the material on record discloses a strong suspicion against the accused, not whether it is sufficient to convict.

4. High Court's Quashing of Charges and Discharge of Accused:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for misapplying the law by giving undue importance to the conduct of the victims and the delay in reporting the crimes. The High Court's reasoning that a saintly man with many disciples would not commit such acts was deemed flawed. The Supreme Court emphasized that victims' behavior can vary based on circumstances, and immediate reporting is not always expected due to fear, shame, or other factors. The High Court's requirement for independent corroboration at the stage of framing charges was also improper.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the Sessions Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law. The Sessions Court was instructed to re-examine the material, consider amending or altering the charges to comply with Section 219 CrPC, and determine whether the offences should be tried together or separately.