Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Kala vs Emperor on 7 June, 1945

State Of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai S/O Velabhai Vanabhai ... on 30 August, 2005

74. Looking to the above injuries, which the deceased had suffered, some injuries must have been caused on the male organ of the accused. Not only medical experts believe that rape on such a kid results into injuries on the male organ of the accused, but even Courts have taken judicial notice of the said fact. Looking to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahim Beg v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 343, and in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mahmad @ Munno Usmanbhi Chauhan, 1996(2) GLR 821 and upon perusal of the judgment delivered in the case of Ram Kala v. Emperor, AIR (33) 1946 Allahabad 191, it is clear that the report given by the medical officer, upon medical examination of the accused, would have thrown sufficient light on the fact whether the accused had in fact committed rape.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A R Dave - Full Document

U.J.S. Chopra vs State Of Bombay on 25 March, 1955

late Court enhanced by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction suo motu or at the instance of the State or in exceptional cases even of any other interested person. Sub-section (6), therefore, confers a new and a very valuable right on the subject which is designed to be a safeguard against the State or other interested person making frivolous revision application for enhancement of sentence. The State or the person interested must, if they ask for an enhancement of sentence, be prepared to face the risk of the accused being altogether acquitted. It is the price or quid pro quo which the State or other interested person must be prepared to pay for the right or privilege of making an application for enhancement of sentence. The language used in sub-section (6) does not, in terms, place any fetter on the right conferred by it on the accused. This new right is not expressed to be conditioned or controlled by anything that may have happened prior to the revision application under sub-section (1) for enhancement of sentence. The section quite clearly says that whenever there is an application for enhancement of sentence a notice must issue under sub-section (2) to the accused person to show cause and whenever such notice is issued the accused person must, under sub-section (6), be given an opportunity, in showing cause against enhancement, also to show cause against his conviction. The sub-section does not say that he will have this right to show cause against his conviction only if he has not already done so. If the accused person appealed against his conviction and sentence to an appellate Court not being a High Court and lost that appeal after a full hearing in the -presence of his opponent it must be conceded that he has had an opportunity to show cause against his conviction but nobody will contend that that circumstance will prevent him from having another opportunity of showing cause against his conviction and sentence either by a substantive application initiated by himself under sub-section (1) or by way of defending himself when the State or other interested person applies to the High Court in revision under section 439(1) for enhancement of 101 sentence and a notice is issued on him under section 439(2). (See Kala v. Emperor(1)). Enhancement of sentence is undoubtedly an encroachment upon the liberty of the subject and a very serious matter for an accused person and the Legislature may quite properly have thought that whenever an accused person is sought to be laid open to the risk of having his sentence enhanced, the question of the legality and propriety of his conviction should be reexamined by the High Court in the context of this new jeopardy, irrespective of anything that might have happened prior to the application for enhancement of sentence and the issuing of the notice on the accused to show cause. Indeed, there is, in sub-section (6) itself, an indication in that behalf. This sub-section is to operate "notwithstanding anything contained in this section".
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 140 - Full Document

Bhudhan Lal Sarma vs The State on 30 August, 1960

Thus, to constitute the offence the evidence of the lady doctor is sufficient that there was rupture of the hymen and that there was injury inside the vagina. Reliance was sought to be placed on a case reported in AIR 1946 All 191, Ram Kala v. Emperor. In that case the learned Judges held that in rape cases if the glans of the male organ is covered by uniform layer of smegma it negatives the possibility of recent complete penetration.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1