Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30.Ld. counsel for accused also relied upon citation "Kartikeshwar alias Kartik Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 CRI. L.J. (NOC) 16 (CHH.)", wherein it has held that :

State Vs. Anil Kumar "Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 376­Rape­Proof­ Accused allegedly took prosecturix, a maid servant to another room and forcibly raped her - Contradictions and omissions in statement of prosecutrix not inspiring confidence­Inordinate delay of two months in lodging FIR not satisfactorily explained­ There was some dispute between two families, therefore, possibility of false implication of accused cannot be ruled out
- Order convicting accused - Liable to set aside."
31.Ld. counsel for accused has also relied upon citation "Babu Dey Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 CRI. L.J. 329", wherein it has held that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 376 - Rape - Proof­ Prosecutrix alleging that accused clandestinely entered into her house in absence of her husband and committed forcible intercourse - Nothing to show that prosecutrix raised any hue and cry - Her version not supported by landlady and other neighbours­ No sign of forcible intercourse noticed during medical examination - Delay in lodging FIR not explained­ Accused entitled to acquittal."

32.Ld. counsel for accused also relied upon citation of Hon'ble Supreme court in case "Kuldeep K. Mahato Vs. State of Bihar, 1998 CRI. L.J. 4033", wherein it has held that :

State Vs. Anil Kumar "Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 375­Rape­ Proof­ Accused alleged to have kidnapped prosecutrix and committed rape on her - Concurrent finding that prosecutrix was below 18 years of age­Medical evidence showing no injuries on person of prosecutrix including her private parts­ Conduct of prosecutrix showing that she was consenting party to sexual intercourse­Not a case of prosecutrix that she was put in physical restraint­Conviction of accused for offence of rape, not proper."