Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.04 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980
The investigation in this case was perfunctory as no effort was made for conducting a smegma test on the penis of the appellant as absence of smegma might have indicated recent intercourse by the appellant. There was no other corroborative circumstance. All the witnesses produced in this case are related and partisan and no independent witnesses were examined. The appellant had been roped in out of suspicion and appear to have been falsely implicated because there is a tendency to nominate someone as an accused when such a crime is committed, because the human mind resists treating a crime as unsolved. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the Apex Court decision in Shankarala Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765
Learned Government Advocate on the other hand argued that from the F.I.R itself the appellant and the co-accused Awadhesh had been named and no dispute could be raised regarding their identity. There was adequate evidence of last seen of the appellant and co-accused along with deceased Sangeeta and there is recovery of a dead body and Angauchha at the instance of the appellant. For some minor defects in the investigation, the prosecution case could not be disbelieved. There was no reason why the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case if they had not committed this grave crime. The chain of circumstance for establishing the complicity of the appellant in this offence is complete.