The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that if one person in a group commits a penetrative sexual act during a gang rape, all others involved with common intention are equally liable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
This judgment came in the case of Raju @ Umakant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where the court upheld the conviction of the appellant Raju, despite his claim that he had not personally committed rape. The Court made it clear that direct penetrative involvement is not necessary to convict someone for gang rape if common intention can be proven.
“In a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment as long as they have acted in furtherance of the common intention,”
— Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Read Also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Death Row Convict’s Plea for Relief Under 'Manoj' Judgment
The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2003), which held that common intention is embedded in the charge of gang rape itself, and it is sufficient to show that the accused acted in concert. It does not require separate proof of rape by each person.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred in 2004 when the victim ‘R’ went missing after attending a wedding. She was later found confined at the house of a woman named LB, who had a relationship with Raju. According to the prosecution, the victim was abducted and wrongfully confined by Raju and Jalandhar Kol (the co-accused), and both committed rape at separate locations.
Read Also:- Mandatory Prescription of Generic Drugs Can Curb Pharma Bribery, Says Supreme Court
Her testimony, which the Court found consistent and credible, described how both accused abducted her, forcibly confined her, and committed sexual assault. Despite initial discrepancies in the FIR and statements that only mentioned rape by Jalandhar, the Court found the overall narrative and evidence reliable.
“The prosecutrix’s testimony clearly inspires confidence. She was a victim, not an accomplice, and her words stand strong even without further corroboration,”
— Supreme Court Judgment
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Disposes PIL Seeking SIT Probe Into Robert Vadra’s Remarks on Pahalgam Terror Attack
The Court also emphasized that it is improper to question the credibility of a rape survivor merely because of minor contradictions or the absence of physical injuries. It pointed out that a victim's testimony, if found credible, is enough to convict, as repeatedly held in earlier rulings.
Section 376(2)(g) IPC includes an explanation that defines gang rape as a situation where a woman is raped by one or more in a group acting with common intention. The law presumes joint liability even if only one person commits the act, provided common intent is evident.
The Court also rejected the appellant's defense that the victim had consensual relations with Jalandhar or had gone with him voluntarily. It clarified that Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act presumes lack of consent if the victim testifies so — which she did in this case.
“Nobody consents to sexual assault by multiple persons. Her clear denial of consent and the chain of events rules out any such claim,”
— Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Interestingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, stating that there was no evidence that the offence was committed due to the victim’s caste identity. It ruled that such charges must be supported by proof that the caste identity was a motive, which was missing here.
The Court modified the sentence of life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, keeping the other punishments under Sections 366 and 342 IPC unchanged. The SC/ST Act charge was dropped.
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan
Case Title: RAJU @ UMAKANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Susheel Tomar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Kant, Adv. Mr. Avinesh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv.
