Act of One Is Enough to Fix Liability in Gang Rape, Where Common Intention Exist: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction

“No Evidence That Caste Was the Ground for the Offence”— Supreme Court of India delivered a nuanced ruling that reaffirmed the principle of joint liability in gang rape, while rejecting the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 where no evidence existed that caste identity was a factor in the crime. The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 366, 342 and 376(2)(g) IPC, but set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, stating that:

“There is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the victim's caste identity was one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence.”

While the appellant’s life sentence was reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, the Court reiterated that:

“In a case of gang rape, an act by one is enough to render all in the group liable, if they acted with common intention.”

The incident occurred in June 2004, when the prosecutrix, a Scheduled Caste woman, was abducted late at night while returning from a wedding. According to her testimony, she was forcibly taken by the appellant Raju and his associate Jalandhar Kol, confined at multiple places, and raped by both. A missing report was filed promptly by her father, and she was recovered by the police four days later from the house of a woman associated with the appellant.

The Trial Court convicted both accused, awarding life imprisonment to the appellant under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and additional punishment under Sections 366, 342 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court affirmed the conviction, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Court gave full weight to the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), holding it to be coherent, natural, and unshaken by cross-examination. It emphasized that:

“The prosecutrix is not an accomplice, and her testimony, if trustworthy, needs no corroboration.”

The Court pointed out that even though earlier documents such as the FIR and consent forms only named Jalandhar as the rapist, the victim’s direct testimony clearly implicated the appellant as well.

“We are convinced that notwithstanding the minor contradictions, her evidence inspires confidence… she has clearly spoken about the accused abducting her and also committing rape on her.”

On the charge of gang rape, the Court relied on Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC and cited Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, affirming: “It is not necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused… the essence is the existence of common intention.”

Acquittal Under SC/ST Act: Lack of Caste-Based Motive

While the conviction for rape was upheld, the Court found the application of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act unjustified. It stated categorically:

“The sine qua non for the application of Section 3(2)(v) is that the offence must have been committed on the ground that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe. No such evidence exists here.”

The Court carefully distinguished between knowledge of caste identity and committing the crime because of it, holding that:

“Knowledge by itself that the victim belonged to SC/ST cannot be said to be the basis of the commission of the offence.”

In doing so, the Court aligned with the reasoning in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, while concluding that the facts of this case did not meet even that liberal threshold.

Considering parity with the co-accused Jalandhar Kol, who received 10 years for the same offence, the Court modified the appellant’s life sentence to 10 years. The Court also condemned the fact that the prosecutrix was subjected to the two-finger test, observing:

“We are only reiterating this aspect so that in future these practices do not recur… a woman’s sexual history is wholly immaterial in adjudicating rape.”

Reinforcing the directives from Lillu v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Kumar Rai v. State of Jharkhand, the Court reminded medical authorities that the practice is now prohibited and must not be repeated under any circumstance.

The Supreme Court delivered a finely balanced judgment—preserving the integrity of the victim’s testimony, reinforcing the law on gang rape, checking overreach under the SC/ST Act, and strongly reaffirming the dignity of survivors during medical examination.

“There is no evidence that caste identity was one of the grounds for the crime… the conviction under the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained.”

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed: the conviction under IPC provisions was upheld, sentence under the SC/ST Act was set aside, and life imprisonment was reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2025