Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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