Supreme Court rules all participants in gang-rape liable if common intention is shown, reaffirming Explanation 1 To Section 376(2)(g) IPC in Raju @ Umakant case.
Case in news
The Supreme Court of India explains that in gang-rape one person’s act implicates all if there’s common intention .
Case Overview
Case name : RAJU @ UMAKANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
The Supreme Court of India bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice KV Viswanathan upheld the convictions of accused individuals for gang-rape explaining that even if only 1 person commits penetration all others sharing a common intention are equally liable . The Court relied on Explanation 1 To Section 376(2)(g) IPC emphasizing collective liability when common intention is proven .
Key Aspects
- Convicts argued they didn’t commit penetration and hence couldn’t be held for gang-rape .
- The prosecutrix was abducted, wrongfully confined and sexually assaulted .
- Trial and High Court convicted all accused under Section 376(2)(g) IPC .
- Supreme Court relied on precedent : Ashok Kumar vs State of Haryana (2003) 2 SCC 143 .
- The Supreme Court stressed that common intention suffices for conviction even without individual penetration .
Legal insights
- Explanation 1 To Section 376(2)(g) IPC : If 1 person commits penetration all with common intention are liable .
- Section 34 IPC : Establishes joint liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention .
- Ashok Kumar precedent : No need to prove rape by each accused if common intention exists .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court of India rejected the appeal reaffirming that the abduction, confinement and sexual assault met the ingredients of Section 376(2)(g) . Justice KV Viswanathan noted that the evidence clearly demonstrated collective action and common intention by the appellant and main accused Jalandhar Kol making all liable for gang-rape under Explanation 1 To Section 376(2)(g) IPC .
Source
