E-Paper
Ram Rahim to be tried under law that can attract life imprisonment in castration case
The high court dismisses his plea challenging framing of charges under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Dera Sacha Suada head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh will be tried in the castration case involving dera followers under the provision of law that can attract punishment up to life imprisonment.
The high court bench of justice Daya Chaudhary has dismissed his plea challenging framing of charges under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under which a convict can be sentenced to life imprisonment.
On August 3, Ram Rahim was charged under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) among other sections, along with the two doctors believed to be closely involved with the castration process.
Ram Rahim has been lodged in sanaria jail of Rohtak since August 25, 2017 for raping two dera followers.
The FIR in the castration case was registered following a Punjab and Haryana high court order in January 2015 on a plea alleging castration of 400 dera followers at the dera premises.
The CBI in its chargesheet had claimed that 128 of these allegedly castrated devotees were contacted and examined during the probe. Six of them became CBI’s main witnesses who deposed against the dera chief and revealed that they were castrated.
The defence argument
Dera head’s counsel had told the court that it is a simple case of surgery and no offence under Sections 326 is made out.
“At the most it can be a case of 325 IPC…. the injection cannot be said to be a weapon,” his counsel had told the court adding that even in case of Section 325 of IPC, the intensity of injury should be of higher magnitude caused with deadly weapon. Under Section 325 of IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), the maximum punishment is seven years.
The cbi contention
On the other hand, CBI counsel Sumeet Goel had argued that the innocent devotees would not have undergone castration had they not succumbed to the inducement. “In case any instrument is used in the commission of offence, not only the intention but how it is used is relevant and under such circumstances, an instrument becomes weapon,” Goel had told the court.
The high court held that at this stage, it is not for the court to see as to whether there is a sufficient ground for conviction of the accused. The theory of benefit of doubt can be given at the end of the trial and not at the stage of framing of charges, the court added.
“There is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for that matter a grievous injury. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually,” the court said adding that the same would be examined by the trial court and it can drop charges under Section 326 of IPC upon appreciation of evidence on record.
