A specific case stirred debate within the Supreme Court, revolving on whether a woman could face accusations of raping another woman. The Indian legal framework, under Section 375 of the IPC, traditionally attributes the accusation of rape solely to men.
The Court expressed doubt regarding the possibility of booking a woman for the offence of rape. Section 375 of the IPC, by its language, seemingly confines the accused to being a “man” in cases of rape. This interpretation aligns with historical views that have only identified men as perpetrators of rape.
In the ongoing case, the accused widow and her son were allegedly involved in the rape of a woman. The complainant had been in a relationship with the accused widow’s elder son and had been residing in their home. Subsequently, pressure mounted on her to terminate the relationship, leading to an agreement between the complainant and the accused, resulting in the termination of the relationship between the complainant and the son of the accused widow.
Following this resolution, the complainant filed a criminal case against the widow and her younger son, accusing them of various offences, including rape, wrongful confinement, causing hurt, and threats.
Despite the widow’s assertions that the case was based on false allegations, both the trial court in Punjab and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed her plea for pre-arrest bail. The High Court stressed that the case’s merits would be decided during the trial.
Moreover, in February of the same year, the Allahabad High Court clarified that while a woman cannot commit rape under the IPC, she might face prosecution for assisting in facilitating gang rape under amended provisions of the IPC.
It’s important to acknowledge the varying legal interpretations and debates regarding whether women can be accused of rape under Section 375 of the IPC. The evolving legal landscape may witness changes or interpretations aimed at addressing gender neutrality and broader definitions of sexual offences.
In a prior case, Priya Patel vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh, a similar issue arose before the Supreme Court. The case involved the victim alleging rape by
Bhanu Pratap Patel, accompanied by the accused appellant Priya Patel, who reportedly did not intervene but instead closed the door on the victim.
While the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a woman cannot commit rape but could be charged under certain circumstances, the Supreme Court, led by then judges Arijit Pasayat and HS Kapadia, accepted the appeal of the accused-appellant Priya Patel. The Supreme Court emphasised that rape could only be perpetrated by a man, referencing Section 376(2) (g) of the IPC, which requires the fulfillment of a common intention to commit rape, an intention that, as per the definition, cannot exist with a woman.
In the ongoing case before the Supreme Court, a notice has been issued, and responses have been sought from all involved parties. This development might influence the trial involving the accused widow facing charges of raping her younger son.