Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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