Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 415 (0.09 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990

Sc No. 100/10 Fir No. 51/09 "State vs . Jai Chand." 1/22 on 17 December, 2012

5.1. PW-1 is Saroj, the Complainant who deposed that on 9.2.2009 they had brought bricks for repair of boundary wall and when she was getting the bricks placed in kharanja on govt. land, accused objected to it and started abusing her. After hearing the voice of the accused, her daughter Monica came there to intervene but accused threatened her that he will kill her if she did not go from there. Then, he picked up a brick and gave blow on Monica's head due to which she started to bleed. Then, her son Jitender also came there after hearing their noise and when he was trying to save them, accused gave a brick blow on his head also and he also started to bleed. Her children informed her husband on his mobile SC No. 100/10 FIR No. 51/09 "State Vs. Jai Chand." 3/22 phone and before he could reach at the spot, they made call at 100 number. Police came in the presence of her husband and took her both children to Safdarjung Hospital. She stated that she did not receive any visible injury although accused had given fist blows on her chest. She was taken to PS Mehrauli where her statement was recorded which she proved as Ex. PW 1/A. Police prepared site plan at her instance. Monica lost hearing power of her one ear due to the injury. In her cross examination, she stated that the incident had taken place at about 1.40 pm. She stated that she had telephoned her husband and she had called police at 100 number. PCR van had taken them to the police station and she remained in police station while the injured persons were taken to hospital by police.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Martin Soares vs State on 8 January, 2026

(Para 18) 5.6.5 As early as in State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, [(1990) 1 SCC 550], this Court observed that the prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with the accomplice, it was further observed that she is a victim of crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. It was further observed that evidence of a rape victim must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. It was stated that there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act which may require it to look for corroboration.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

______________________________________________________________________ vs Pankaj Samkadia on 11 January, 2017

In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash rt Kewalchand Jain, this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 558-60, paras 15-17) "15. It is necessary at the outset to state what the approach of the court should be while evaluating the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, in sex offences. Is it essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated in material particulars before the court bases a conviction on her testimony ? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save the rarest of rare the court should look for corroboration before acting on the evidence of the prosecutrix ?
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Damber Singh Chettri vs The State Of Sikkim on 9 July, 2018

"12. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. (See State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210 : AIR 1990 SC 658] .) Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance."
Sikkim High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 10 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

Deepak Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2025

Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384]” (Para 18) 5.6.5 As early as in State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, [(1990) 1 SCC 550], this court observed that the prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put 16 on a par with the accomplice, it was further observed that she is a victim of crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. It was further observed that evidence of a rape victim must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. It was stated that there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act which may require it to look for corroboration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Dhulia - Full Document

Allah Noor vs Nct Of Delhi on 24 September, 2009

6. Learned APP for the State, however, has supported the impugned judgment by submitting that the statement made by the Prosecutrix makes out a case against the appellant under Section 376 IPC and the defence produced by the appellant is of no consequence. In fact, even appearing as a witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C. , the appellant has not denied the factum of committing rape upon the prosecutrix. It is also submitted by the learned APP that finding of no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix in the medical examination, which, of course, has been done by an inexperience doctor or there being no corroboration to her statement are of no consequence. Conviction in such case can always be based on the sole testimony of the prosecution. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Chanderprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 Cri.L.J. 889. On the point of sentence, it is submitted by the learned APP that the punishment awarded to the appellant is adequate for his ghastly act of Criminal Appeal No.244/2007 Page 5 of 13 committing rape upon the person of her daughter in law, who is of unsound mind and had no security even from her husband, who is deaf and dumb.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M C Garg - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next