The Suprem Court has clarified that if any one of the accused in the gangrape case has also committed sexual activity, then all the accused will be held guilty, provided they have committed a crime with a similar intention. The court, while retaining the punishment of the gang rape convicts, also said that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that every accused participated in the Penetrative Act. Under Section 376 (2) (G) of the Indian Penal Code, if there is a case of gang rape, everyone can be convicted on the basis of the act of an accused, if they have worked under a shared intention. This shared intention lies in this section.

NEET UG Guidelines: NEET exam tomorrow, what to take, what ban, learn dress code, document list and rules

According to the report of the bar and bench, the court said that in cases of gang rape under Section 376 (2) (G) of the IPC, if all the accused committed the crime with shared intention, then the rapist committed by an accused is sufficient to punish everyone. The court made it clear that under this section, if more than one person together participated in the crime, it is not necessary that every person has done the act of rape. The rape done by only one person is enough to blame everyone, provided shared intention is proved. This comment was made in Madhya Pradesh in 2004 keeping the sentence of the accused in the case of kidnapping and gang rape of a woman. Accused Raju filed an appeal in the Supreme Court after the Madhya Pradesh High Court maintained his sentence.

Delhi MCD by-Elections: By-election dates are going to be announced soon in 12 wards of MCD

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court said that even though the rape was mentioned only by Jalandhar Cole in the FIR, the victim has clearly said in her statement that Raju is also involved in rape. The court also clarified that even if it was assumed that Raju did not rape, he would still be guilty of gang rape even if he had worked with another accused. The court, referring to the case of Pramod Mahato vs. Bihar State (1989), said that in such cases it is not necessary that every accused has a clear proof of the complete act of rape; If they work together and participate in the intention of rape of the victim, then everyone will be held guilty.

Relief from SC/ST Act, but IPC streams continue

However, the court canceled the conviction under Section 3 (2) (v) of Raju's SC/ST Act, as it could not be proved that the crime was done on the basis of the victim's caste. Referring to the case of Patan Jamal Wali vs Andhra Pradesh state, the court said that it is necessary to have a clear reason between caste and crime.

Ruckus over including 'Kashmir issue' in DU's psychology curriculum, accused of 'political intervention'

The court clarified that despite the victim's early and subsequent statements, her overall testimony could be trusted. The bench said that small contradictions in evidence do not affect its credibility. Thus, the victim's testimony was considered valid, even if she does not have any direct support.

“Two-finger test” again told inhuman

The court expressed concern over the use of the “two-finger test”, once again called it “inhuman and derogatory”. The court also said that the sexual history of a woman is completely irrelevant and it is a symbol of patriarchal and gender thinking that the testimony of a sexually active woman should be suspected. Although the Supreme Court upheld the conviction in all the sections of the Indian Penal Code, Raju's life imprisonment was reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment due to co-accused Jalandhar Cole.

What was the matter?

The incident took place in June 2004, when the victim was returning from a wedding ceremony. During this time he was kidnapped and he was illegally kept at various places. The victim said in her statement that she was raped by two persons named Jalandhar Cole and Raju. The government lawyer introduced 13 witnesses, including the victim, her father and investigating officer. The trial court convicted both the accused on charges of gangrape, kidnapping and illegal detention, resulting in Raju to life imprisonment and Jalandhar Cole to 10 years. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, after which Raju appealed to the Supreme Court, while Jalandhar Coal did not challenge the High Court's decision.