Common intention in gang rape liability fails where prior concert is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Liability for gang rape under Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code requires proof that more than one person acted with a common intention or prior concert to commit rape; such intention may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, but mere presence near the scene is insufficient. On the facts, the prosecutrix's account was inconsistent about the appellant's role and arrival, and no specific act showed participation in a shared plan or furtherance of the offence. The Court held that the necessary pre-concert and common intention were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable for gang rape under Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of common intention and prior concert, despite the absence of proof that he personally committed rape on the prosecutrix.

Analysis: Liability under the deeming provision for gang rape requires proof that more than one person acted in concert with a common intention to commit rape, which may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances but must still show prior meeting of minds or participation in a shared plan. Mere presence at or near the place of occurrence is not enough. On the facts, the prosecutrix's versions were inconsistent as to the appellant's role and timing of arrival, and no specific act or conduct was proved to show that he shared the intention to commit rape or that he participated in furtherance of such intention. The evidence did not establish the necessary pre-concert or common intention beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable under Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---