In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that in cases of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is not necessary to prove that each accused committed the act of rape individually, as long as there is clear evidence that the act was committed in furtherance of their common intention. The Court stated:
“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.”
The judgment was delivered on 1 May 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in a criminal appeal challenging concurrent convictions under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), and 342 IPC, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a missing person report filed on 24 June 2004 at a police station in Madhya Pradesh, after a young woman failed to return from a wedding function. She was recovered four days later from a house belonging to a woman who had a relationship with one of the accused.
In her statement to the police and later in court, the woman alleged that she had been abducted, confined at various locations, and raped by two men who acted together. She described being forcibly taken on a motorcycle, locked in a room in an isolated house, and subjected to repeated sexual assault by both accused. Her father lodged a complaint that led to the registration of an FIR and initiation of criminal proceedings.
The trial court convicted both accused. One was also convicted under the SC/ST Act, while the other was not. The High Court upheld the convictions and sentences. One of the accused then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be clear, credible, and consistent. It observed that:
“Her evidence inspires confidence and clearly implicates both accused in the abduction and sexual assault.”
On the legal issue of gang rape, the Court relied on Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC, which provides that when a woman is raped by one or more persons acting in furtherance of a common intention, each person is deemed to have committed gang rape. The Court cited precedents including Pramod Mahto vs State of Bihar and Ashok Kumar vs State of Haryana, reiterating:
“It is not necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused. This provision embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is the existence of common intention.”
The Court further explained that the victim’s consistent account of being abducted, confined, and sexually assaulted by both accused was sufficient to establish guilt under Section 376(2)(g), even if the FIR and consent forms initially mentioned only one accused by name.
Rejection of Defence Claims
The Court rejected the defence argument that the act was consensual or that the complainant had a prior relationship with one of the accused. Citing Section 114A of the Evidence Act, the Court observed that when a victim states in court that she did not consent, the court is bound to presume absence of consent, unless rebutted:
“A reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix makes it amply clear that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse against her consent. She has also specifically denied the suggestion that she went with the accused of her own free will.”
The Court also found the defence witnesses untrustworthy and their statements contradictory to the recovery memo and other prosecution evidence.
Conviction Under SC/ST Act Set Aside
However, the Court found that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable. It held that there was no evidence that the offence was committed on the ground that the woman belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
The Court cited Dinesh @ Buddha vs State of Rajasthan, Asharfi vs State of U.P., and the Constitution Bench decision in Patan Jamal Vali vs State of Andhra Pradesh, noting:
“The sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that the offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”
In the absence of any such evidence or motive, the Court set aside the conviction under this provision.
Modified Sentencing
While the trial court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(g), the Supreme Court reduced this to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, to bring it in line with the sentence imposed on the co-accused. The convictions under Sections 366 and 342 IPC and the corresponding sentences were upheld. All sentences are to run concurrently.
Condemnation of the Two-Finger Test
The Court expressed concern that the medical examination of the prosecutrix involved the outdated and unscientific “two-finger test.” Referring to its earlier rulings, the Court reiterated that such tests are irrelevant and degrading:
“Whether a woman is ‘habituated to sexual intercourse’ is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of Section 375 IPC are present in a particular case. It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed merely because she is sexually active.”
The Court reiterated that such practices must not be repeated and are in violation of the guidelines laid down in previous judgments.
The appeal was partly allowed. The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s convictions under the IPC for abduction, confinement, and gang rape, but acquitted him under the SC/ST Act due to lack of caste-based motive. The sentence of life imprisonment was modified to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
