Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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