Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Sujit Ranjan vs State on 27 January, 2011

State vs . Vikrant Singh Page No. 1/28 on 3 July, 2017

"Legal position which can be culled out from the judicial  pronouncements referred above is that the consent given  by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with whom  she is in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a  later   date,   cannot   be   considered   as   given   under  "misconception   of  fact".   Whether  consent  given  by  the  prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether  it is given under "misconception of fact" depends on the  facts   of   each   case.   While   considering   the   question   of  consent, the Court must consider the evidence before it  and   the  surrounding   circumstances   before   reaching   a  conclusion. Evidence adduced by the prosecution has to  be   weighed   keeping  in   mind   that   the   burden   is   on   the  prosecution   to   prove   each   and   every   ingredient   of   the  offence. Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give  rise   to  inference   beyond  reasonable   doubt  that   accused  had   no   intention   to   marry   prosecutrix   at   all   from  inception   and   that   promise   made   was   false   to  his  knowledge. The failure to keep the promise on a future  FIR No. : 93/14 PS : Kalkaji State Vs. Vikrant Singh Page No. 17/28 uncertain date may be on account of variety of reasons  and could not always amount to "misconception of fact"
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Prayag Sharma -:: Page 1 Of 65 ::- on 31 March, 2014

"Legal position which can be culled out from the judicial pronouncements referred above is that the consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with whom she is in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be considered as given under "misconception of fact". Whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether it is given under " misconception of fact " depends on the facts of each case. While considering the question of consent, the Court must consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances before reaching a conclusion. Evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be weighed keeping in mind that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that accused had no intention to marry prosecutrix at all from inception and that promise made was false to his knowledge. The failure to keep the promise on a future uncertain date may be on account of variety of reasons and could not always amount to " misconception of fact " right from the inception."
Delhi District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Narender @ Nikhil -:: Page 1 Of 62 ::- on 16 May, 2014

"Legal position which can be culled out from the judicial pronouncements referred above is that the consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with whom she is in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be considered as given under "misconception of fact". Whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether it is given under " misconception of fact " depends on the facts of each case. While considering the question of consent, the Court must consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances before reaching a conclusion. Evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be weighed keeping in mind that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference Sessions Case Number : 96 of 2013.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Hari Mohan Sharma on 25 November, 2013

" Legal position which can be culled out from the judicial pronouncements referred above is that the consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with whom she is in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be considered as given under " misconception of fact" . Whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether it is given under " misconception of fact " depends on the facts of each case. While considering the question of consent, the Court must consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances before reaching a conclusion.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rohit Tiwari vs State on 24 May, 2016

"Legal position which can be culled out from the judicial pronouncements referred above is that the consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with whom she is in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be considered as given under "misconception of fact". Whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether it is given under "misconception of fact" depends on the facts of each case. While considering the question of consent, the Court must consider the evidence before it and the surrounding Crl.A. 928-2015 Page 5 of 11 circumstances before reaching a conclusion. Evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be weighed keeping in mind that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that accused had no intention to marry prosecutrix at all from inception and that promise made was false to his knowledge. The failure to keep the promise on a future uncertain date may be on account of variety of reasons and could not always amount to "misconception of fact" right from the inception."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - S Gupta - Full Document

State vs Rohit on 28 September, 2016

"Legal   position   which   can   be   culled   out   from   the judicial pronouncements referred above is that the consent   given   by   the   prosecutrix   to   have   sexual intercourse with whom she is in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be considered as given under "misconception of fact".
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Astik Mandal Page No. 1/17 on 21 January, 2017

"Legal position which can be culled out from the  judicial   pronouncements   referred   above   is   that  the   consent   given   by   the   prosecutrix   to   have  sexual intercourse with whom she is in love, on a  promise that he would marry her on a later date,  cannot   be   considered   as   given   under  "misconception of fact".
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next