{"id":1303,"date":"2024-01-04T16:36:17","date_gmt":"2024-01-04T11:06:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1303"},"modified":"2024-01-04T17:32:46","modified_gmt":"2024-01-04T12:02:46","slug":"gujarat-high-court-holds-that-a-man-is-a-man-an-act-is-an-act-rape-is-a-rape-be-it-performed-by-the-husband-on-the-wife","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/gujarat-high-court-holds-that-a-man-is-a-man-an-act-is-an-act-rape-is-a-rape-be-it-performed-by-the-husband-on-the-wife\/","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat High Court holds that, A man is a man; an act is an act; rape is a rape, be it performed by the \u201chusband\u201d on the \u201cwife\u201d."},"content":{"rendered":"

ANJANABEN W\/O BHAVINBHAI DEVSHANKARBHAI MODHA\u00a0 <\/strong>(applicant ) Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>STATE OF GUJARAT\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>(respondent)<\/p>\n

R\/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20522 of 2023<\/p>\n

(CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-11208057230026 of 2023 registered with the Rajkot Cyber Crime Police Station, Rajkot of the offence punishable under Sections 354(a)(c), 376, 376(D), 498(a), 506(2), 508, 509, 34, 114 and 201 of IPC as well as Sections 66(e) and 67(a) of I.T. Act.<\/p>\n

Issues:<\/u><\/strong>Whether cognizance being taken against the applicant-accused for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC is tenable in law?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for applicant:<\/u><\/strong> Ms. Urvashi Mehta<\/p>\n

Learned advocate Ms. Urvashi Mehta appearing for the applicant has submitted that the so called incident took place and the impugned FIR<\/a> came to be lodged on 13.08.2023 and the applicant-accused was arrested on the very same day, i.e., on 13.08.2023 and since then he is in jail. It is further submitted that now the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate Ms. Mehta has further submitted that the applicant accused is the mother-in-law of the complainant and it is alleged in the first information report that the present applicant-accused has aided, instigated and abetted the accused No.2, i.e, the husband of the complainant to commit such an offence and, therefore, she has been arraigned as an accused. The only role attributed to her is of abettor. Learned advocate Ms. Mehta has submitted that the present applicant accused is a lady aged about 45 years and she is behind the bar since 13.08.2023. It is further submitted that so far as the offence under the provisions of Sections 354(A)(C), 498(A), 508, 509, 34, 114 and 201 of the IPC are concerned, the maximum punishment to be imposed is of three years and for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2) of IPC and Sections 66(e), 67(a) of the I.T. Act, the maximum punishment to be imposed is of seven years.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong> Mr. Rahul Dave<\/p>\n

The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that the role of the present applicant-accused is clearly spelt out from the compilation of the charge-sheet papers. Learned APP Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the present applicant-accused has actively participated in the commission of the crime since beginning and the said fact is clearly reflected from the statements of the witnesses. It is very categorically stated by the complainant that her husband and father-in-law were acting and behaving in such an unusual manner that cannot be acceptable in the Society. It is very specifically alleged in the complaint that all the accused persons were forcing the complainant to record her own nude videos by wearing mask which would be uploaded on one particular porn website and by doing so, they will earn some volume of amount from the said website. It is further submitted that the father-in-law of the complainant was behaving in a very indecent manner with the complainant in the presence of the applicant as well as her son and as and when the complainant tried to raise her voice against such an act at the end of the father-in-law, she was overpowered by all the family members.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court rejected the above application, holding that, \u201cThe complaint clearly brings out the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Section 354 of the IPC<\/a> which deals with assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty is clearly met in the complaint. Section 506 of the IPC deals with criminal intimidation which is also met in the complaint. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 498A<\/a>, 376, 354 and 506 of the IPC are all clearly spelt out in the complaint, in the statements recorded during the investigation and the contents of the summary in the charge sheet. None of the grounds urged by the learned advocate with regard to the offences alleged against the wife merit acceptance. There are various disputed questions of fact that have to be thrashed out only in a full-fledged trial. If the applicant has anything in her defense on the allegations, it is for her to put up such defense before the Sessions Court and come out clean in the trial. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court deems it fit not to interfere with the judgment passed by the the trial court, particularly, in the light of the aforesaid allegations.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ANJANABEN W\/O BHAVINBHAI DEVSHANKARBHAI MODHA\u00a0 (applicant ) Vs.\u00a0 STATE OF GUJARAT\u00a0 \u00a0(respondent) R\/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20522 of 2023 (CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI) Facts: The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-11208057230026 of 2023 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1305,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1303","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1303"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1303\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1318,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1303\/revisions\/1318"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1305"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}