In a significant ruling aimed at strengthening the legal framework against gang rape, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that an act of penetration by even one accused in a gang rape is sufficient to convict all members of the group, provided there is a clear common intention among them to commit the offence. The decision came in the case of Raju @ Umakant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the apex court reaffirmed the doctrine of joint liability in sexual offences committed by multiple accused under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Key Takeaway: One Man’s Act, Everyone’s Liability
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan held that gang rape does not require individual acts of penetration by each member of the group. If the prosecution can establish that the accused acted in furtherance of a shared intent to commit the crime, all of them are equally liable.
“It is very clear that in a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), an act by one is enough to render all in the gang liable for punishment as long as they have acted in furtherance of the common intention,” the Court stated.
This interpretation serves the purpose of Section 376(2)(g) which is to address the grievous nature of gang rape and ensure that no participant in such a brutal act escapes liability simply because he did not commit penetration himself.
Background: The 2004 Madhya Pradesh Case
The case stemmed from a horrific incident that took place in June 2004. The victim, a woman from a Scheduled Tribe community, was abducted while returning from a wedding function. She was forcibly confined and later subjected to gang rape by two men—Jalandhar Kol and the appellant Raju (also known as Umakant).
The trial court convicted both Kol and Raju under Section 376(2)(g) IPC (gang rape), Section 366 (abduction), and Section 342 (wrongful confinement). Raju was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Kol received a ten-year sentence. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the convictions, prompting Raju to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments and Court’s Reasoning
Raju’s counsel argued that there was no conclusive evidence of penetration by Raju and that the victim had initially mentioned only Kol in the First Information Report (FIR). However, the Court pointed out that the victim’s detailed testimony during the trial clearly indicated Raju’s active role in both the abduction and sexual assault. Even if penetration by Raju was not conclusively proven, his shared intention and participation in the commission of the crime brought him within the ambit of Section 376(2)(g).
The Court referred to the precedent set in Pramod Mahto v. State of Bihar (1989), which clarified that individual acts of penetration are not necessary in gang rape cases. The explanation to Section 376(2)(g) was introduced precisely to curb the menace of gang rapes where collective action is involved.
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Set Aside
Interestingly, the Court found that the conviction of Raju under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could not be sustained. This section requires proof that the offence was committed because of the victim’s caste. The Court emphasized the need for a clear causal nexus between the caste identity and the offence, which was missing in the present case.
Quoting Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Bench reiterated that not every crime against an SC/ST victim automatically attracts the SC/ST Act. The prosecution must show that the act was motivated by caste-based prejudice.
Medical Examination and Invasive Practices
The Supreme Court also expressed concern about the use of the controversial “two-finger test” in the medical examination of the victim. The Court denounced the practice as inhuman and degrading, and reiterated that a woman’s sexual history is irrelevant in judging her credibility.
“A woman’s sexual history is wholly immaterial… It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed merely for the reason that she is sexually active,” the judgment read.
This observation aligns with the growing judicial consensus against regressive and invasive practices in the examination of sexual assault survivors.
Sentence Reduced but Conviction Upheld
Although the Court upheld Raju’s conviction for gang rape, kidnapping, and wrongful confinement, it reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment, bringing it in line with the punishment awarded to co-accused Kol.
The Court took a balanced approach by recognizing the gravity of the offence while also considering proportionality in sentencing.
Conclusion: A Strong Message on Gang Rape Accountability
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Raju @ Umakant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh sends a strong message that in cases of gang rape, legal liability extends to all participants, regardless of who physically committed the act of penetration. The decision reflects a deeper understanding of the collective nature of such crimes and underscores the importance of shared intent and participation.
By clarifying the scope of joint liability and dismissing attempts to evade responsibility based on technicalities, the Court has fortified the legal framework protecting survivors of gang rape. Furthermore, the observations on invasive medical tests and caste-based offence attribution signal a progressive shift toward survivor-centric justice.
Relevant Provisions and Citations
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC: Gang rape
- Section 366 IPC: Kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage
- Section 342 IPC: Wrongful confinement
- Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act: Offence committed on the ground of caste
- Key Case Cited: Pramod Mahto v. State of Bihar (1989), Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh
