One accused, two aides in Kolkata gangrape case: Why all three face same charges

New Delhi,UPDATED: Jun 27, 2025 16:39 IST

Less than a year after the horrific RG Kar Hospital rape incident in Kolkata, another shocking case in the city has brought renewed focus on the glaring issues surrounding women’s safety in West Bengal. According to police reports, a law student in Kolkata was brutally sexually assaulted by three men after rejecting a marriage proposal from one of them.

A 24-year-old woman has alleged that a former student of South Calcutta Law College, along with two current students, gang-raped her on June 25 after she declined a proposal of marriage.

According to the complaint filed by the woman, the incident unfolded when the accused, enraged by her refusal, forcibly took her to a secluded room on the college campus. There, one man undressed and raped her. The survivor resisted, but the perpetrator threatened her by showing videos of the assault and warned he would leak them to her family and friends if she continued to resist. During the assault, the other two men stood by, watched, and recorded the crime on their phones.

While only one man physically raped the woman, the others played active roles in facilitating and enabling the crime. The complaint states that they confined her, abetted the act, and participated in the intimidation and humiliation.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The FIR includes charges under Sections 127(2), 70(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the three accused.

Section 127 of the BNS addresses the offence of wrongful confinement, which constitutes a violation of personal liberty. It occurs when someone is intentionally restrained or confined in a way that prevents them from moving freely, despite having the right to do so. Clause 2 of Section 127 states that anyone who wrongfully confines another person shall be punished with imprisonment for up to one year, or with a fine of up to Rs 5,000, or both.

Section 70(1) deals with the offence of gang rape. It defines gang rape as a situation where a woman is raped by one or more persons acting as a group or in furtherance of a common intention.

The concept of “common intention” is crucial in establishing collective criminal liability.

In this case, although only one of the three men physically raped the woman, she alleges that the others actively participated by recording videos and threatening her. Under Section 70, all members of the group are deemed to have committed the offence, regardless of who carried out the penetrative act.

This is reinforced by Section 3(5), which elaborates on the principle of common intention. It states: “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Importantly, this shared intention does not require a formal agreement or prior meeting of minds. It can be inferred from the conduct, presence, and participation of the accused.

Specifically in the context of gang rape, this means that even if only one person physically commits the rape, others who assist, facilitate, or encourage the act with shared intent are equally liable.

Under Section 70, the punishment prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of 20 years, which may extend to life imprisonment (meaning for the remainder of the convict’s natural life), along with a fine.

As a result, even though only one man physically raped the survivor in the Kolkata case, all three have been charged with gang rape, as they allegedly acted together, shared intent, and played active roles in enabling the crime.

WHAT HAVE THE COURTS SAID?

The Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003) clarified the principle of joint liability in gang rape cases under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that if a gang rape is committed by even one person in a group, all the accused can be held guilty provided they shared a common intention. The essence of joint liability lies in the existence of this shared intention, which presupposes prior concert or meeting of minds among the offenders. It is not enough that each accused individually intended to commit rape; there must be collective action or criminal sharing in the commission of the offence.

The Court emphasised that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that each accused committed a penetrative act. An act by one person, if done in furtherance of the group’s common intention, is sufficient to implicate all members.

This principle was reaffirmed in subsequent rulings, where the Court consistently held that one person’s act in a gang rape scenario can render all liable, provided there was shared intent.

In Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003), the Supreme Court reiterated that in gang rape cases, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that each accused raped the victim. The Court noted that the law holds every person in a group acting with common intent liable, even if some did not physically commit the act.

The Court stated:

“In cases of gang rape, the proof of a completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required. The statutory intention in introducing Explanation 1 in relation to Section 376(2)(g) appears to have been to effectively deal with the growing menace of gang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary for the prosecution to adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each of the accused in order to convict them under Section 376 IPC.”

Similarly, in Pardeep Kumar v. Union Administration, Chandigarh (2006), the Supreme Court affirmed that joint liability in gang rape cases stems from the principle that when a group acts in concert with a common intention, all members are equally liable for acts committed by any one of them. The Court clarified that it is not necessary to prove that every accused performed the penetrative act, as long as the group acted with a shared intent and the offence was committed in furtherance of that intent.

- Ends