NEW DELHI: Holding that it is not necessary for the prosecution to adduce clinching proof of complete act of rape by each one of the accused to convict all for gangrape, Supreme Court has reiterated that in cases of gangrape, even if one commits rape, all the other persons involved should be held responsible and be equally punished.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and K V Viswanathan rejected the plea of an accused who claimed that he was not named along with other accused by the survivor in the FIR and his role was confined to helping the main accused.
Rejecting the plea, the bench said, "In a case of gangrape 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."
Referring to earlier SC verdicts, the bench said in order to establish an offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the prosecution must adduce evidence to indicate that more than one accused had acted in concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by even one, all the accused would be guilty irrespective of the fact that the woman had been raped by one or more of them and it was not necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused.
Common intention is essence of joint liability: SC
In other words, this provision embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is the existence of common intention; that common intention presupposes prior concert which may be determined from the conduct of offenders revealed during the course of action and it could arise and be formed suddenly, but there must be meeting of minds and it is not enough to have the same intention independently of each of the offenders," it said.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and K V Viswanathan rejected the plea of an accused who claimed that he was not named along with other accused by the survivor in the FIR and his role was confined to helping the main accused.
Rejecting the plea, the bench said, "In a case of gangrape 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."
Referring to earlier SC verdicts, the bench said in order to establish an offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the prosecution must adduce evidence to indicate that more than one accused had acted in concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by even one, all the accused would be guilty irrespective of the fact that the woman had been raped by one or more of them and it was not necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused.
Common intention is essence of joint liability: SC
In other words, this provision embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is the existence of common intention; that common intention presupposes prior concert which may be determined from the conduct of offenders revealed during the course of action and it could arise and be formed suddenly, but there must be meeting of minds and it is not enough to have the same intention independently of each of the offenders," it said.
You may also like
Rana Daggubati poses with 50 Cent, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Flo Rida
Sam Thompson 'realised his worth' after Zara McDermott split, says Pete Wicks
Top 20 most boring snacks Brits eat everyday - with crisps and chocolate included
Siddaramaiah govt to invite tender for ambitious tunnel project in Bengaluru
WhatsApp confirms urgent 24-hour deadline - you could be blocked from chats tonight
