Supreme Court Acquits Woman Accused of Aiding Rape Offender: Seetaben Laghdhirbhai v. State of Gujarat

In a significant judgment reaffirming the importance of clear evidence in cases of abetment and harbouring under the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court in Seetaben Laghdhirbhai v. State of Gujarat has set aside the conviction of the appellant who was earlier held guilty of aiding and abetting a rape offender. The appeal was allowed on 16 January 2025 by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an incident dating back to April 2008, in which the principal accused (accused no.1) allegedly abducted and raped a minor girl (PW8), a student in the 8th standard. The appellant, Seetaben (accused no.3), was convicted alongside her husband (accused no.4) for allegedly harbouring the principal accused and the victim in their home. It was alleged that the appellant had not only provided shelter to the accused but also refused to allow the victim to leave, thereby abetting the crime under Sections 212 and 114 read with 376 of the IPC.

The trial court convicted Seetaben under Section 114 read with Section 376, and also under Section 212 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction. Seetaben then approached the Supreme Court in appeal.

Legal Analysis by the Supreme Court

The crux of the matter before the apex court was whether the appellant could be held liable for abetment of rape under Section 376 IPC read with Sections 107, 108, and 114, and for harbouring an offender under Section 212 IPC.

Abetment of Rape (Section 376 read with Sections 107/114 IPC)

The Court observed that for a conviction under Section 114 read with Section 376 IPC, there must be substantive evidence that the accused instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the commission of the crime. However, the victim’s testimony failed to show any such active involvement by the appellant in the rape.

Quoting Section 107 IPC, the Court clarified that none of the three clauses—instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid—were satisfied. Even the victim’s statement that she had told the appellant that she was lured by the main accused was not substantiated by her police statement and was contradicted in cross-examination.

Harbouring Under Section 212 IPC

The Court further held that the offence of harbouring requires knowledge or reason to believe that an offender has committed a crime, and that the concealment was intended to shield the offender from justice. However, the Supreme Court pointed out a significant omission in the victim’s original police statement where she did not allege that she had informed the appellant about being lured. The Court emphasized that such a contradiction could not be overlooked and amounted to a material omission affecting the integrity of the prosecution’s case.

Thus, both the High Court and Trial Court erred in relying on weak, uncorroborated evidence to convict the appellant. The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations were likely an afterthought and lacked legal weight.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The Court clarified that its findings were strictly limited to the role of the appellant and did not extend to co-accused already convicted. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant were ordered to be cancelled.

This case highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are not based on assumptions or weak circumstantial evidence, especially in serious allegations like abetment of rape.

---

Also Read:

• Senior Legal Counsel at Vahura
• Kochhar & Co. Dispute Resolution Hiring (June 2025 | Delhi)
• Internship at Saraf and Partners, Delhi
• Internship at Advocate Kuber Hooda & Associates (Online/Offline)
• AK & Partners Internship, New Delhi
• Internship at Vinod Kothari & Company
• Legal Savvy Internship (June–August 2025)
• Likhawat 2.0 – National Essay Writing Competition (15 June 2025)