IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing of charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that accused has committed offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at conclusion that it was not likely to lead to conviction.

JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J. - Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel.

2. On 11.5.91, one Purushottam Wasudeo Deshpande lodged a complaint at the Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur that his two young daughters, Hema and Meera were kidnapped by Priya Sharan Maharaj (Respondent No.1) with the help of Suhasini (Respondent No.6) and Sharwari Devi (Respondent No.7). On the basis of this report an offence was registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Investigation of that offence disclosed that Kripalu Maharaj (Respondent No.2), who claims to be a spiritual teacher and has his Ashrams at Vrindavan and Mangadh, is a highly immoral person and in order to satisfy his lust he, with the help of his disciples, including Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 7, used to entice young girls and have sexual intercourse with them against their wish. Respondent No.2, through his disciples, used to impress upon the young girls that he is the incarnation of Lord Krishna, that they should treat him as their husband and that what he was doing with them was in the nature of 'Prasad' of God and by such acts they were really blessed. The investigation further disclosed that Meera, Hema and one Sulakshana were thus subjected to sexual intercourse by Kripalu Maharaj Accordingly, the offence which was registered against them earlier under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was altered to an offence under Section 376 IPC and all the seven respondents were shown as accused.

3. On being charge-sheeted, they were put up for trial before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur who had framed the following charge:

"1. That, you above named accused No.2, prior to 1987 at the house of one Nilu Chaurasia, in front of Vijay Talkies, Nagpur, committed rape on one Kum. Meera D/o Purushottam Deshpande, aged 26 years, r/o Nagpur, against her will and with her consent, posing yourself, you are a devine spirit or Lord Krishna. So also, again in the month of February, 1991, you accused No.2, posing yourself that you are a divine spirit of Lord Krishna, committed rape on said Kum. Meera Deshpande, at the house of one Shrivastava, Near Previnamee School, Nagpur.

Again on 16th day of January, 1990, at about 5.00 p.m. at the house of one Khatri, Kadhi Chowk, Nagpur, committed rape on one Sulakshana D/o Shyamsunder Pehankar, a girl aged about 14 years, r/o Juni Shukrawari, Nagpur. Again on 14.4.1990, at about 5 p.m. at the house of one R.P. Shrivastava, Nagpur you committed rape on said Kum. Sulakshana, posing yourself that you are a Divine Spirit of Lord Krishna. So also, in the month of Sept. 1986, at the house of one Chaurasia, Near Vijay Talkies, Nagpur, you accused No.2, posing yourself, you are a Divine Spirit of Lord Krishna, committed rape on one Kum. Hema @ Brijgauri d/o Purushottam Deshpande, aged about 19 yrs., against her will and without her consent, and thereby you above named accused No.2, committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, within my cognizance.

2. Secondly, that above named accused No.2, on the aforesaid day, date, time and place, committed the offence of rape on the said girls, and that you above named accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, in furtherance of your common intention, abetted the said accused No. 2, in the commission of the said offence of rape, which was committed in consequence of your abetment. So also, you about named accused Nos. 1, 3 to 7 were personally present at the time of commission of said offence, and that you all thereby committed offences punishable under Section 109, 1141 R/W Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, within my cognizance."

4. Aggrieved by framing of the charge the respondents had preferred a revision application but the High Court declined to interfere as it was open to the respondents to approach the Sessions Court itself for granting the relies prayed for. The respondents, therefore, filed three applications in the Sessions Court. Exhibit 36 was for modification of the charge and Exhibits 37 and 41 were f