Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.03 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 May, 1987
In the decision reported in 2014(1)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.764 of 2012 dt.12-09-2014 16
PLJR 81 (Satyendra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar) the rape was alleged
to have been committed in hotel. The husband was not an eye-witness
and except the prosecutrix no staff of the hotel has been examined about
the presence of the victim and accused nor there is evidence that they
were seen together nor the victim raised alarm. The sole testimony of the
victim not found reliable to inspire confidence nor any corroboration
found and hence, accused was acquitted.
Jinish Lal Sah vs State Of Bihar on 20 December, 2002
In
the decision reported in 2003(1) PLJR 239 (SC) (Jinish Lal Sah Vs. State
of Bihar) the victim went out of the house to go to his grand-father but
she went with the appellant on the pretext of visiting cinema and went to
Muzaffarpur and from Muzaffarpur she went to Jasidih and then to
Deoghar and married at Deoghar and signed paper and in such
circumstance she was a consenting party.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Bindeshwar Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 28 February, 2009
In the decision reported in
2009(3) PLJR 75 (Bindeshwar Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar) the
victim made a contradictory statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
and did not make any attempt to narrate her woes to anyone when she
had an opportunity.
Kailash Sharma @ Kalsoo Sharma vs State Of Bihar on 25 April, 2011
In the decision reported in 2011(3) BBCJ-V 201
(Kailash Sharam @ Kalsoo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar) the victim was
kidnapped and taken away but there was no evidence to the occurrence,
even the informant and father of the victim were not the eye-witnesses.
During trial the evidence of both father and victim was a mystery
regarding arrival of the girl and accordingly, it was father who had
pointed out to the victim that it was appellant who has taken her and
hence, the evidence is not reliable.
Koko Das vs The State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2011
In the decision reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 407 (Koka
Das Vs. The State of Bihar) the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be
relied if it inspires confidence, however, held that the pretence require
corroboration of the solitary evidence either by medical evidence or
other evidence.