The Supreme Court recently held that when a group acts with a common motive to commit gang rape, an act of penetration by even one person is sufficient to convict all others involved. The top court clarified that in gangrape cases, the prosecution doesn't need to prove that each accused person committed the full act of rape. If one person carries out the act, everyone involved can still be held responsible and face the same punishment, as long as they all shared the same intention.
While hearing a case, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan said that as long as all members have acted in furtherance of the common intention they would all be culpable of the gang rape.
"It is very clear that 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," the apex court observed, reported Bar&Bench.
The two-judge bench rejected the plea of an accused who claimed that he was not named along with the other accused by the survivor in the FIR and his role was confined to being an accomplice to the main accused.
Rejecting the plea, the court ruled, "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."
"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," the bench said.