Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Sohan Singh Alias Kala S/O Rattan Singh on 17 October, 2023 cites

State Of Punjab vs Sohan Singh on 15 May, 2009

1. Appellant (State of J&K through Sr. Superintendent of Police Kathua) has commenced instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 13.08.2013 rendered by the Court of Learned Principal Sessions Judge Kathua (for short „the Trial Court‟) in case titled "State vs Sohan Singh and others" in File No. 02/Sessions arising out of FIR No. 30/2001 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 364, 325, 323, 34 RPC, whereby, respondents herein have been acquitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 51 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Madho Ram And Anr. vs The State Of U.P. on 19 December, 1972

"Secondly, the doctor stated to have examined the vaginal swab but did not find any spermatozoa. Detection of spermatozoa is a positive sign of recent sexual intercourse. It is almost accepted in medical science that presence of spermatozoa in vagina after the intercourse would be detected from 30 minutes upto 9 days or even 17 days (vide Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, page 337-338, 20th Edition), in a case before the Supreme Court, reported in Madho Ram v. State of UP. 7, presence of spermatozoa was detected in the wearing apparel of the girl even after six days of the seizure of the garments and the report of the serologist was accepted as a corroborative evidence of rape. In the present case, PW-1 stated that four persons, except appellant Balia, while committing the act had full penetration and all released the sperm inside the vagina. Could it be believed that PW-1 scrubbed her private part so carefully and thoroughly so as to completely wipe out the vaginal fluid so that no spermatozoa should be detected from the vaginal swab even though the same was examined only two days after the occurrence. She did not 6 CRAA No. 42/2014 state anywhere in her statement to have washed or cleaned her private part but rather stated that when she left the house of the appellants in the morning, she had not finished her daily work and further did not take her bath. Though it cannot be conclusively held that she did not have a wash at all, in the absence of her statement in assertions of such fact, the prosecution case becomes doubtful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 42 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document
1