On May 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India strongly condemned the use of the two-finger test during the medical examination of sexual assault survivors. In the case of Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the gang rape conviction but took serious note of the fact that the two-finger test was conducted on the victim back in 2004. Even though the test occurred before it was widely recognized as unscientific and humiliating, the Court reaffirmed that this inhuman and outdated practice must not be used under any circumstances going forward.
By reiterating its position, the Apex Court sent a strong message to law enforcement and medical professionals, emphasizing that the two-finger test violates the dignity and privacy of survivors, and has no place in a just legal system. This judgment strengthens the ongoing efforts to protect the rights and well-being of victims of sexual violence in India.
Read Also: SC on Live-in Relationships: No Rape If Mutual
Background of the two-finger test Case
The case traces back to 2004, when a missing report was filed by a concerned father after his minor daughter did not return home from a wedding procession (barat). The girl had gone with an acquaintance but failed to come back, prompting immediate police action. Upon investigation, the victim was eventually recovered from the house of the appellant’s wife, which led to a shocking discovery.
The prosecution alleged that accused no. 2 had abducted and raped the victim, threatening her with death. Raju @ Umakant, the appellant (accused no. 1), was charged with aiding in the commission of the crime by harboring the co-accused in his room.
Both accused were tried under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for serious offences including:
- Section 366 IPC – Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her to marry or force her into illicit intercourse,
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC – Gang rape,
- Section 342 IPC – Wrongful confinement.
- Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – which provides enhanced punishment when an offence is committed against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on the basis of their caste identity and is motivated by the victim’s caste or tribal identity
The Special Judge convicted both the accused. However, accused no. 2 was not charged under the SC/ST Act, as no specific caste-related motive was established against him. The Madhya Pradesh High Court later confirmed the convictions.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking to challenge the conviction particularly under the SC/ST Act.
Read Also: Visually Impaired Eligible for Judicial Services: SC
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act Explained
This section is applicable when a person commits any offence under the IPC punishable with 10 years or more and does so on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In this case, the prosecution argued that the caste of the victim played a role in the crime, leading to the application of this section.
The Court also examined the application of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and found that there was no direct evidence proving the offence was committed on the basis of the victim’s caste identity. Citing Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), the Court noted that mere knowledge of caste identity is not enough unless it is shown to be the motive behind the crime. As a result, the conviction under the SC/ST Act was set aside, but the conviction under the IPC sections for gang rape, abduction, and confinement was upheld.
Read Also: SC Defends Urdu Use; Says Language Unites All
Reasoning and Observations of the Supreme Court in two-finger test
The Supreme Court, after examining the facts and evidence of the case, made important observations regarding the crime and the legal principles involved. The Court noted,
“… it is very clear that in a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), 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. Further, common intention is implicit in the charge of Section 376(2)(g) itself and all that is needed is evidence to show the existence of common intention.”
This means that even if one person commits the act of sexual violence, all members involved can be held responsible if they share the same purpose or plan.
The Court carefully reviewed the victim’s testimony and found it clear and convincing that she was forced into sexual intercourse without her consent. She also firmly denied any suggestion that she went with the accused voluntarily.
Regarding the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court referred to the case of Patan Jamal Vali and explained that the law now requires only knowledge of the victim’s caste identity for convicting under the SC/ST Act. The Court further explained that Section 8 of the Act presumes that if the accused knows the victim or their family, they also know the caste or tribal identity unless proven otherwise.
However, in this case, the Court found no evidence to prove that the offence was committed on the basis of the victim’s caste. Due to this lack of proof, the Court upheld the conviction under the relevant IPC sections but set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act.
Importantly, the Court also strongly condemned the practice of conducting the two-finger test on the victim. The judges remarked,
“We are only re-emphasizing this aspect so that this obnoxious, inhuman and degrading practice is not repeated on victims of sexual assault.”
This observation highlights the Court’s concern about respecting the dignity of victims and avoiding outdated medical procedures like the two-finger test that violate human rights and the victim’s dignity.
Read Also: Honour Killing Case: Supreme Court’s Strong Verdict
Implications of This Judgment
- Stronger Accountability in Gang Rape Cases: The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, all individuals involved in a gang rape can be held accountable if they acted with a common intention. This means that even if only one person physically committed the rape, others in the group can still be punished if they were part of the plan or helped in any way. This ruling ensures that no participant escapes responsibility, reinforcing the principle of collective punishment in such heinous crimes.
- Clearer Standards for SC/ST Act Convictions: The Court highlighted that for a conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically under Section 3(2)(v), it is not enough to simply prove that the accused knew the victim’s caste. There must be solid evidence showing that the crime was committed because of caste-based discrimination. Since no such motive was proven in this case, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the need for precise and credible proof.
- Firm Ban on the Two-Finger Test: In a strong condemnation, the Supreme Court called the two-finger test an “obnoxious, inhuman, and degrading practice.” The Court made it clear that this test should never be used again in the medical examination of sexual assault survivors. Such a test invades the victim’s privacy and causes deep psychological harm. This ruling is a big step towards safeguarding the dignity of survivors and promoting more respectful, trauma-sensitive forensic procedures.
- Encouragement for Evidence-Based Convictions: The judgment underscored the importance of relying on clear, concrete evidence rather than assumptions. Especially in SC/ST Act cases, the Court insisted that the motive must be proven, not presumed. This helps prevent the wrongful use of caste-based laws and ensures that justice is based on facts, not speculation or bias.
- Judicial Awareness and Legal Reform Push: The Supreme Court’s observations show a push toward modernizing outdated judicial practices. By rejecting the two-finger test and emphasizing scientific, respectful procedures, the Court is advocating for reforms in how sexual assault cases are handled. This judgment may influence new guidelines for forensic and legal practices across the country.
- Awareness and Training for Law Enforcement: The ruling also pointed out the need for better training of police officers, doctors, and legal professionals. It stressed that everyone involved in handling sexual assault cases must understand the rights of victims and the harm caused by degrading practices like the two-finger test. Improved awareness can lead to more sensitive and professional treatment of survivors.
- Overall Impact: This landmark judgment reinforces the rights and dignity of sexual assault survivors, strengthens legal accountability in gang rape cases, and marks a clear shift away from obsolete and harmful forensic practices. It sets a higher standard for how the justice system should treat victims with compassion, respect, and fairness.
Final Thought
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Raju Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh is a powerful reminder that justice must not only punish the guilty but also protect the dignity of the victim. By strongly condemning the two-finger test, the Court has reinforced the constitutional values of dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. This case not only sets legal clarity on gang rape and common intention but also boldly reaffirms the call to abandon outdated and dehumanizing medical practices. The decision marks a vital step forward in building a more sensitive, informed, and victim-centred justice system one where survivors are heard, respected, and protected.
Read Also: Functional Disability | Employees’ Compensation Act 2025
