RAJU @ UMAKANT versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 30-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 615
Raju @ Umakant 
v. 
The State of Madhya Pradesh 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2377 of 2025)
01 May 2025
[Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366,  
376(2)(g) and 342, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 
Act, 1989 is justified.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – Explanation 1 to s.376(2)(g) – Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 
1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Appellant convicted u/ss.366, 376(2)(g) and 
342, IPC and s.3(2)(v), 1989 Act – Challenge to:
Held: In a case of gang rape u/s.376(2)(g), IPC 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 – Common intention 
is implicit in the charge of s.376(2)(g) itself and all that is needed is 
evidence to show the existence of common intention – Prosecutrix 
clinchingly and unwaveringly deposed about the commission of 
rape by both the appellant and the co-accused – Ingredients of 
s.376(2)(g) are squarely attracted in view of the abduction of 
the victim, her wrongful confinement, her testimony about being 
subjected to sexual assault – Appellant along with co-accused 
acted in concert and with a common intention to sexually assault 
the prosecutrix – Conviction of the appellant u/ss.366, 342 and 
376(2)(g), IPC upheld – However, on facts, offence u/s.3(2)(v), 
1989 Act is not attracted – Appellant acquitted from the charge of 
s.3(2)(v), 1989 Act. [Paras 19(d), 23]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – When not attracted – Present 
case, if covered within the threshold set out in Patan Jamal 
Vali case:
* Author
2
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: No – No evidence to establish that the victims caste identity 
was one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence – On 
facts, no evidence to bring the case within the threshold of Patan 
Jamal Vali – In the absence of any evidence attracting the offence 
of s.3(2)(v), the conviction of the appellant u/s.3(2)(v), 1989 Act 
is set aside and he is acquitted from the charge thereunder. 
[Para 44, 45]
Criminal Law – Rape – Testimony of prosecutrix – Reliance 
upon:
Held: Prosecutrix is not an accomplice and if her evidence inspires 
confidence it can be acted upon without corroboration – In the 
present case, not only does the evidence of the prosecutrix 
sound natural, it also inspires confidence – On facts, any need 
for corroboration can be safely dispensed with – All that the law 
mandates is that the Court should be alive to and conscious 
of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who 
is interested in the outcome of charge levelled by her – If after 
keeping that aspect in mind if the Court is satisfied that the 
evidence is trustworthy, the Court can act on the sole testimony 
of the prosecutrix. [Paras 17, 18]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114A – Presumption as to absence of 
consent in certain prosecutions for rape:
Held: Plea that the prosecutrix was in a relationship with the 
co-accused and there was consent, rejected – Evidence of the 
prosecutrix makes it clear that she was subjected to forcible sexual 
intercourse against her consent – Apart from a feeble suggestion 
that the prosecutrix was having physical relations with the co-
accused for the last four years and that she went to his house 
out of her free will, there is nothing concrete adduced to rebut the 
presumption. [Para 25]
Criminal Law – Rape – Two-finger test – Practice deprecated – 
Reiterated that such degrading practice be not repeated: 
Held: Though the medical examination of Prosecutrix was done 
on 29.06.2004 long before the judgments of this Court deprecating 
such practice and directing that any person who conducts the 
“two-finger test” or per vaginum examination (while examining 
a person alleged to have been subjected to a sexual assault) 
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 
3
Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
in contravention of the directions of this Court shall be guilty of 
misconduct however, it is reiterated that this obnoxious, inhuman 
and degrading practice be not repeated on victims of sexual 
assault and in future these practices do not recur. [Paras 29, 31]
Words and Phrases – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – “on 
the ground t

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