Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Harendra Prosad Bagchi vs Emperor on 22 April, 1940

Emperor vs Mahadeo Tatya on 3 December, 1941

It is, of course, obvious, as pointed out by the Calcutta High Court in Harendra Prasad v. Emperor2 that a prosecutrix in rape cases is not an accomplice. If she was, the offence would not be rape unless she was under fourteen years of age. But in our view the Calcutta High Court has not thrown any doubt on the general rule that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case must be corroborated.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Parbati Debi vs The State on 4 September, 1951

14. There is no presumption that in every case of rape the prosecutrix must be deemed to be an accomplice so far as her credibility is concerned. There can be no assumption in the absence of evidence that she is an accomplice. It may be desirable that in every case of rape the Judge must warn the jury that they should not convict unless the evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated in the same manner as the evidence of an accomplice i.e. in material particulars by independent evidence establishing not only the crime but the identity of the ravisher. It is not the law that in the absence of such warning the charge in all cases would be bad. In a particular case where the prosecutrix is found to be untruthful or to be of an immoral character such warning must be given and an omission to do so would make the charge bad. It should, however, be remembered that the Jury with the above rule of caution in their mind may still convict on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if the Jury be satisfied of the truth of her evidence. Sen J. in Harendra Prosad v. Emperor, 44 Cal. W. N 830 : I. L. R. (1940) 2 cal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1