Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 515 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Ramdas And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 2006

Smt Shakuntala vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 20 September, 2018

45. The statement of prosecutrix and complainant shows several lacunae. There are serious contradiction in her statement and they have made material improvement after filing of the belated complaint. Applying "Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana" and "Ramdas and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra", conviction under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 120-B IPC in alternate Section 107 and Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Bhandari - Full Document

Ravi Kumar Bhowel vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 September, 2025

In the case of Ramadas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 2 SCC 170], the Supreme Court has held that conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the Court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. It also held that in the case of sexual offences, the initial hesitation of the victim to report the matter to the Police which may affect her family life Page No.# 19/24 and family's reputation would be another consideration, which should weigh in the mind of the Court. There may be cases where the victim may chose to suffer ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cast a stigma on her rest of life. There are cases where the initial hesitation of the prosecutrix to disclose the true fact may provide a good explanation in delay in lodging the FIR. In the ultimate analysis, what is the delay in lodging an FIR with the Police, is a matter of appreciation of evidence and the Court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court thus held that mere delay in lodging of the FIR may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the Court on fact.
Gauhati High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Zothankhuma - Full Document

Deva Ram vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 20 September, 2018

26. The statement of prosecutrix shows several lacunae. There are serious contradiction in her statement and she has made material improvement after filing of the belated complaint. Applying "Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana" and "Ramdas and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra", conviction cannot be sustained
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P Bhandari - Full Document

Shakuntala vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 20 September, 2018

26. The statement of prosecutrix shows several lacunae. There are serious contradiction in her statement and she has made material improvement after filing of the belated complaint. Applying "Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana" and "Ramdas and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra", conviction cannot be sustained
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P Bhandari - Full Document

Devaram vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 20 September, 2018

45. The statement of prosecutrix and complainant shows several lacunae. There are serious contradiction in her statement and they have made material improvement after filing of the belated complaint. Applying "Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana" and "Ramdas and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra", conviction under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 120-B IPC in alternate Section 107 and Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Bhandari - Full Document

Ramdas vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 December, 2020

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.2- Assistant Collector Ist Class/Revenue Officer, District Mainpuri to decide the Case No.04425/2018, Computerized Case No.D-201801490004425 (Ramdas Vs. State) of the petitioner within a period of one year from the date of production of copy of this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Bhura Singh vs State Of Delhi on 23 November, 2011

In Ramdas (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Supreme Court had held that the prosecutrix did not appear to be a witness of sterling quality and hence conviction could not be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the instant case the Supreme Court had observed that the prosecutrix had tried to conceal certain facts from the court and had also deviated from the case narrated in the FIR. In addition there was a delay of 8 days which was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix. However in the present case there is no inordinate delay and the prosecutrix has supported the case of the prosecution thoroughly and her statement had been consistent. In any case the Crl. A. No.910/2006 Page 39 of 54 testimony of the prosecutrix has been substantially corroborated.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next