Raju @ Umakant Appellant(S) vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 615 - S.376 IPC - Gang Rape - SC-ST Act - S.114A Evidence Act - Two Finger Test
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376(2)(g)- In a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment as long as they have acted in furtherance of the common intention. Further, common intention is implicit in the charge of Section 376(2)(g) itself and all that is needed is evidence to show the existence of common intention. (Para 23) not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of complete act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one- Referred to in Pramod Mahto and Others vs. State of Bihar, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 672. (Para 21-23)
SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act- Section 3(2)(v) -The sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) was that the offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Para 44) [Context: Supreme Court acquitted the accused by observing thus: There is no evidence whatsoever to establish the fact that the victims caste identity was one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence. In the absence of any evidence attracting the offence of Section 3(2)(v), we are constrained to record an acquittal for the appellant from the charge of Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act.]
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - The prosecutrix is not an accomplice and that if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence it can be acted upon without corroboration- a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of another person’s lust and it will be improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion. All that the law mandates is that the Court should be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of charge levelled by her and if after keeping that aspect in mind if the Court is thereafter satisfied that the evidence is trustworthy, there is nothing that can stop the Court from acting on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. (Para 17-18)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114A- There is a presumption as to absence of consent in case of gang rape and it will be presumed that the prosecutrix did not give consent as long as the prosecutrix states in evidence before the Court that she did not consent- The presumption is based on the reasoning that nobody can be consenting to several persons simultaneously- Referred to State of Rajasthan vs. Roshan Khan and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 476 and Mohd. Iqbal and Another vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 14 SCC 481. (Para 25)
Two finger test - Obnoxious, inhuman and degrading practice on victims of sexual assault- Referred to Lillu alias Rajesh and Another vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643 and State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai alias Pandav Rai, (2022) 14 SCC 299. (Para 29)
