Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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