MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Allahabad High Court Clarifies: Women Can Be Prosecuted for Gang Rape under Amended Law

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court clarified the legal position regarding the prosecution of women for gang rape under the amended provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court dismissed an application filed by Suneeta Pandey, who sought the quashing of an order summoning her to face trial for the offense of gang rape under Section 376-D IPC.

The headline for the news article can be taken directly from a quote in the judgment: "Women Can Be Prosecuted for Gang Rape" - Allahabad High Court.

Suneeta Pandey's counsel argued that, as a woman, she could not be charged under Section 376-D IPC, which pertains to gang rape. However, the court cited the amended provisions of the IPC and explained that a woman can be prosecuted for gang rape if she facilitates the act with a group of people. It clarified that while a woman cannot commit the offense of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, she can be held accountable for gang rape.

The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Patel v. State of M.P. and another, (2006) 3 SCC (Cri.) 96, and highlighted the distinction between rape and gang rape offenses. It stated that the amended Section 376-D IPC establishes the principle of joint liability, wherein if one person in a group commits rape, all the accused will be held guilty.

Furthermore, the court discussed the scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C., which deals with the invocation of powers to summon additional accused. It clarified that the court can invoke its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the evidence collected during the inquiry or trial and not the material collected during the investigation by the investigating agency.

The judgment quotes the court as stating, "No interference is called for in the impugned order... The application has no force and is accordingly dismissed." The court found that the evidence and provisions of law supported the summoning of Suneeta Pandey to face trial for the offense of gang rape under Section 376-D IPC.

This judgment by the Allahabad High Court provides clarity on the prosecution of women for gang rape under the amended provisions of the IPC. It reinforces the principle of joint liability and highlights the need to consider the evidence presented during the trial when invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

 Date of Decision: February 13, 2023

Suneeta Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/13-02-Suneeta-Pandey-vs-state-of-UP-375^J376.pdf"]

Latest Legal News