PARDEEP KUMAR versus UNION ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PARDEEP KUMAR 
v. 
UNION ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH 
AUGUST 18, 2006 
B 
[B.N. AGRA WAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 109, 366, 368 r.md 376: 
Rape-Trial Court found all the five accused persons guilty under 
C Section 376 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for JO 
years-Upholding conviction of accused-appellant and another, High Court 
acquitted one of the accused, remaining two accused died during the 
pendenq of the appea/--Fi/ing of appeal by one of the convicts-Held: 
Direct proof of common intention/act done in furtherance of the common 
D intention is seldom available, if could be inferred from the proved facts and 
circumstances--Prosecutrix supports the case of the prosecution in the 
beginning but at subsequent stages she differs with it-Prosecutrix 
categorically stated that the accused-appellant had not defiled her and also 
did not mention anything about his conduct to show that he shared common 
intention with other accused, on the other hand, the prosecution could not 
E prove its case-Prosecutrix had kept on changing her version-Her statement 
does not inspire confidence to reach the conclusion that the accused in 
question was present at the place of incident right from the beginning to infer 
any pre-concert with other accused persons to commit rape-Under the 
circumstances, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 
F 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, Accused-(L) on the 
pretext of marriage took the prosecutrix to the residence of his cousin to 
settle the marriage. On the way, another person also accompanied them. When 
the prosecutrix, along with these two persons entered the house, yet another 
person joined them. These three persons then consumed liquor. When the 
G advances made by them were resisted by the prosecutrix, one of them 
threatened her with dire consequences. Three persons then committed rape 
on her. Thereafter, two other persons arrived there and they also committed 
rape on her. After committing the crime, when the accused persons were 
taking liquor in another room, the prosecutrix escaped from the house. On 
H 
594 
PARDEEPKUMAR v. UNION ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH 
595 
the way, she met police personnel, to whom she narrated the whole incident. A 
An FIR was lodged in the Police Station. The police came to the place of 
incident and apprehended three accused persons from there, but two other 
accused managed to escape. The victim was sent for medical examination. On 
examination, the Medical Officer found no evidence of external injury on the 
body of the victim and opined that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. Trial 
Court found all the accused guilty under Section 376 IPC and sentenced them B 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for JO years and to pay fine. Appeals were 
filed by the accused persons before the High Court. Two accused persons died 
during pendency of the appeal. The High Court upheld the conviction of the 
accused-appellant and another for committing the offence under Section 376 
IPC and acquitted another. The present appeal is filed by one of the convi!:ts. C 
It was contended for the appellant that the High Court committed an 
error in convicting him under Section 376 IPC since the prosecutrix herself 
had deposed before the Court that only two of the accused persons, other than 
the appellant, defiled her against her wish and consent. 
Respondent-State submitted that though the accused-appellant had not 
actually committed rape on the prosecutrix, but he was rightly convicted under 
Section 376 IPC, as it was proved by the prosecution that he was a member of 
D 
the group which acted in concert to commit rape on the prosecutrix and in 
furtherance of the common intention rape was committed and by virtue of 
Explanation I to Section 376(2)(g) IPC, all members of such a group would E 
be liable for the acts committed by other members of that group when the act/ 
rape is committed in furtherance of their common intention. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is settled law that the common intention or the intention F 
of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common intention could be 
proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts. or attending 
circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. Direct proof of common 
intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be 
inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.