⚖️Case Title
ANSXXX & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
📌Criminal Revision Petition No. 37/2025 & CRL.M.A. 2891/2025
📅Decision Date: 15 October 2026
Delhi High Court
🏛️Before: Justice A.J. Bhambhani
📜Factual Background
The case arose from FIR No. 520/2024 registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. Initially, the complaint was made by the mother of a minor girl alleging kidnapping. During investigation, the victim returned and disclosed that she had been repeatedly subjected to sexual assault between December 2023 and July 2024.
The victim alleged that petitioner No.1 (a woman and her mother) threatened her with death if she refused to have sexual relations with petitioner No.2. She further stated that petitioner No.1 remained present during the assaults and facilitated the acts. Charges were framed under Sections 70(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m) BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The principal challenge before the High Court was whether a woman could legally be charged with the offence of gang rape under Section 70 BNS.
🧩Legal Issue
Whether a woman can be prosecuted for the offence of gang rape under Section 376D IPC / Section 70 BNS, despite the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS being committed only by a “man”?
📃Contentions of the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that:
- Section 63 BNS defines rape only in relation to a “man”; therefore, only a man can commit rape.
- Consequently, the expression “one or more persons” in Section 70 BNS must be interpreted as referring only to a group of men.
- A woman cannot possess the legal intent to commit rape and hence cannot be prosecuted for gang rape.
- The Supreme Court had already settled the issue in:
- Priya Patel v. State of M.P. & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 263
- State of Rajasthan v. Hemraj & Anr., (2009) 12 SCC 403
The petitioners contended that these decisions categorically held that a woman cannot be prosecuted for gang rape.
📃Contentions of the State / Amicus Curiae
The Amicus Curiae and the State submitted that:
- Section 376D IPC and Section 70 BNS are independent substantive offences introduced after the 2013 Criminal Law Amendments.
- The offence of gang rape is based on joint liability and common intention.
- The expression “one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention” is gender-neutral.
- A person who facilitates, aids or acts in furtherance of the common intention is deemed to have committed gang rape even if such person does not physically commit rape.
- Post-2013 amendments significantly changed the statutory framework and therefore the rulings in Priya Patel and Hemraj cannot be mechanically applied.
The Amicus also relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Sundari Gautam v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024:DHC:5944, which recognised the gender-neutral nature of certain sexual offences under the POCSO Act.
📚Case Laws Discussed
Supreme Court Decisions
- Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 263.
- State of Rajasthan v. Hemraj & Anr., (2009) 12 SCC 403.
- Rafiq Ahmad @ Rafi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 8 SCC 300.
- M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 28.
- Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1.
- State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association, (2002) 1 SCC 589.
- Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, (1980) 3 SCC 358.
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350.
- Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724.
- S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591.
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Kumari, (2007) 12 SCC 768.
- K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 244.
- Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta, (2021) 7 SCC 209.
- V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 244.
- Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62.
- Frick India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 400.
- Sudha Rani Garg v. Jagdish Kumar, (2004) 8 SCC 329.
- Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545.
High Court Decision
- Sundari Gautam v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024:DHC:5944.
- Suneeta Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine All 44.
Other Authorities
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 : 1924 SCC OnLine PC 49.
- State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan, (1973) 1 SCC 512.
- Nairn v. University of St. Andrews, [1909] AC 147 (HL).
🔎Observations of the Delhi High Court
The Court made the following significant observations:
- After the 2013 amendments, gang rape ceased to be merely an aggravated form of rape and became a separate substantive offence under Section 376D IPC, now Section 70 BNS.
- Section 70 BNS uses the expression “one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention”, which is intentionally wider than “men”.
- The legislature consciously employed the term “persons”, which must be given a gender-neutral meaning.
- The deeming fiction that every participant shall be “deemed to have committed the offence of rape” reflects legislative intent to punish everyone contributing to the commission of gang rape, irrespective of their personal ability to physically commit rape.
- Liability under Section 70 BNS is founded on participation in a group and common intention, not merely on physical commission of penetrative acts.
- A woman may therefore be prosecuted where she facilitates, aids, coerces, instigates, or acts in furtherance of the common intention leading to rape by members of the group.
📋Decision
The Delhi High Court held that:
A woman can be charged with the offence of gang rape under Section 376D IPC and Section 70 BNS if she forms part of the group or acts in furtherance of the common intention behind the commission of rape.
The revision petition was dismissed and the order framing charges was upheld.
📝Concluding Remarks
This judgment marks a significant development in Indian criminal jurisprudence by recognising that liability for gang rape is based on collective criminality and common intention, not merely physical perpetration. The Court distinguished pre-2013 precedents and adopted a purposive interpretation aligned with the legislative evolution of sexual offence laws. The decision reinforces that individuals who facilitate or orchestrate sexual violence cannot avoid prosecution merely because of their gender.
💡Key Takeaways
✅ Section 70 BNS is a distinct substantive offence and not merely an extension of the definition of rape.
✅ The expression “persons” in Section 70 BNS is gender-neutral.
✅ A woman may be prosecuted for gang rape if she participates in the criminal enterprise or acts in furtherance of the common intention.
✅ Physical commission of rape is not necessary for attracting liability under Section 70 BNS.
✅ The doctrine of deemed liability plays a crucial role in fixing responsibility on all participants in a gang rape.
✅ Priya Patel (2006) and Hemraj (2009) were distinguished in light of the post-2013 legislative framework.
🔖Hashtags
#DelhiHighCourt #GangRape #Section70BNS #BNS2023 #CriminalLaw #POCSO #SexualOffences #CommonIntention #CriminalJurisprudence #LegalUpdate #CaseLaw #IndianLaw #JusticeAJBhambhani #GenderNeutralLiability #LegalInsights
📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇