The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 366 (kidnapping), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 376(2)(g) IPC (gang rape), ruling that even if only one accused commits rape, all participants acting in common intention are equally liable. However, it acquitted the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, citing lack of evidence that the crime was committed on the ground of caste identity. The Court reiterated that corroboration is not mandatory if the victim’s testimony is credible and condemned the outdated “two-finger test” in sexual assault cases. The sentence under Section 376(2)(g) was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years to align with the co-accused’s punishment.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from an incident on the night of 23-24 June 2004, when the prosecutrix (R) and her friend (SA) were returning from a wedding ceremony in Katni, Madhya Pradesh. While attending to nature’s call, the prosecutrix was abducted by the appellant (Raju @ Umakant) and co-accused (Jalandhar Kol). They gagged her, forced her onto a motorcycle, and confined her in Raju’s house in the fields. Over the next few days, she was raped by both accused and later moved to another location (Dair Salaiya), where Raju’s associate (LB) kept her until her recovery by police on 28 June 2004.
The FIR (Exhibit P-20) initially mentioned only Jalandhar’s involvement in rape, but later statements revealed Raju’s participation. The trial court convicted both under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), and 342 IPC, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing Raju to life imprisonment for gang rape. The High Court upheld the conviction, prompting Raju’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the gang rape conviction, holding that common intention under Section 376(2)(g) IPC makes all participants liable even if only one committed rape. However, it acquitted Raju under the SC/ST Act, finding no evidence that the crime was caste-motivated. The Court also condemned the “two-finger test” and reduced Raju’s sentence to 10 years, aligning it with Jalandhar’s punishment.
Procedural History:
The case began with the registration of FIR No. 113/2004 at Kymore Police Station, Katni, under Sections 376, 363, 366, 342, 506/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act, following the prosecutrix’s statement. The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Katni, framed charges under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), and 342 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, convicting the appellant and co-accused in Sessions Case No. 140/2004. The trial court sentenced Raju to life imprisonment for gang rape, among other penalties.
On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) upheld the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 2324/2006, prompting Raju to file a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17398/2024 before the Supreme Court. The apex court, while maintaining the IPC convictions, set aside the SC/ST Act charge due to lack of caste-based intent evidence and reduced the sentence under Section 376(2)(g) from life to 10 years, ensuring parity with the co-accused. The final judgment was delivered on 1 May 2025.
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations in its judgment. It emphasized that common intention under Section 376(2)(g) IPC renders all participants liable for gang rape, even if only one accused physically committed the act. The Court reaffirmed that a victim’s testimony alone can sustain conviction if found credible, rejecting the need for corroboration in sexual assault cases.
It strongly condemned the “two-finger test” as unscientific and degrading, directing authorities to discontinue this practice. Regarding the SC/ST Act charge, the Court acquitted the appellant under Section 3(2)(v), finding no evidence that the offense was committed on the ground of caste identity, though it acknowledged that caste could be one of multiple intersecting motives in such cases. The Bench modified the sentence to ensure parity with the co-accused, reducing the life term to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(g), while maintaining other convictions. The judgment reiterated that medical evidence cannot override credible ocular testimony in sexual violence cases.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Sections 366 (kidnapping), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 376(2)(g) IPC (gang rape) but acquitting him under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act due to insufficient evidence of caste-based intent. While upholding the 5-year sentence under Section 366 and the 6-month term under Section 342, the Court reduced the punishment under Section 376(2)(g) from life imprisonment to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment to align with the co-accused’s sentence. The fines and default clauses were retained.
The Bench directed that all sentences run concurrently and emphasized the need to abolish the two-finger test, denouncing it as unconstitutional and discriminatory. The judgment reinforced that gang rape liability applies even if only one perpetrator commits the act, provided there was common intention, and affirmed that a survivor’s testimony alone can suffice for conviction if credible. The accused, already in custody, was ordered to serve the remaining sentence as modified. The ruling was delivered on 1st May 2025 by Justices Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan, marking a significant clarification on gang rape jurisprudence and the limited scope of the SC/ST Act in absence of caste-motivated intent.
Case Details:
Case Title: Raju @ Umakant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Citation: 2025 INSC 615 Criminal Appeal No: ( Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17398 of 2024) Date of Judgment: 1st May 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Download The Judgement Here