SC Reiterates: All In A Gangrape Act Can Be Equally Punished If Common Intention Proven
New Delhi: In a significant reaffirmation of the law on gangrape, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that all individuals involved in a gangrape incident can be held equally responsible under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, even if only one among them commits the act of rape. The court clarified that what matters is the shared intention among the group members, not the individual physical actions of each.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the appeal of an accused who argued that he had merely assisted the main perpetrator and was not named by the survivor in the First Information Report (FIR). The bench held that under Section 376(2)(g), common intention is inherently embedded in the charge, and once that shared intent is proven, all individuals in the group can be punished equally.
“It is very clear that in a case of gangrape…an act by one is sufficient to render all members of the group liable for punishment, provided they acted in furtherance of a common intention,” the bench observed. Referring to established legal precedents, the court explained that once it’s proven that the accused acted in concert with a shared purpose, each individual is deemed guilty—even if only one physically committed the act of rape.
The case in question involved the abduction and wrongful confinement of the survivor, followed by her sexual assault. Based on her testimony and the sequence of events, the court found that the accused, Raju alias Umakant, and co-accused Jalandhar Kol had acted jointly and intentionally, thereby satisfying the criteria of common intention under the law.
The ruling reinforces the principle of joint liability in gangrape cases, emphasizing that common intention may not always require prior planning but can emerge from the collective conduct during the crime. “There must be a meeting of minds,” the court said, noting that the shared objective can develop spontaneously, as long as it leads to a concerted act.
This decision serves as a legal reminder that aiding, abetting, or being part of a group with the intent to commit sexual assault carries equal culpability, even if an individual did not commit the act of penetration.