Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 162 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Dinesh @ Buddha vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2006

Dinesh vs State on 8 February, 2011

7. Having heard the learned counsels at the bar, since the learned counsel for the accused appellant does not want to press the present appeal on merits and prays for taking a lenient view in the matter and that the accused appellant is in custody for almost four and a half years out of the substantive sentence of seven years awarded by the learned trial court, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to partly allow the present appeal of the accused petitioner by reducing the substantive sentence of seven years RI to S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409/2007 Dinesh vs. State of Raj.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Dharmmuni Joshi And Another vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2023

20. There is no medical evidence to prove that she was dragged by the accused when she was taken to their home. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Dinesh @ Buddha vs. State of Rajasthan, Kaini Rajan vs. State Kerala, and in Vishnu (Supra) would inure for the benefit of the accused. One more aspect is that PW-1, after staying for one year, had gone to the Commissionrate with an advocate, there also she has not raised any hue and cry. It cannot be said that she was confined against her wish. Neither can it be said nor is it proved that there was forcible sex by the appellants herein with the prosecutrix. We are unable to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the State that this was a case of rape. The ingredients of Sections 366, 368 & 375 of IPC are not proved. The fact that even after her marriage, she has deserted her three children and she was staying with the accused. Her evidence does not proved that she was forced into any kind of relationship.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramphal & Anr. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next