Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.45 seconds)Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharat vs State Of M.P on 30 January, 2003
In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the case of Bharat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1992 Cri. L.J. 3218.
Tukaram And Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1978
It is further submitted that in the case of Tukaram and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1978 Cri.L.J. 1864, the Supreme Court has held in identical case that where police constables were involved, and if the circumstances negativing existence of "fear" and story of "passive submission", accused, held, entitled to be acquitted. It is submitted that as the appellant-accused and the prosecutrix had developed intimacy and they were having intercourse attending circumstances like non existence of injury on the person of the prosecutrix, her failure to resist is indicative and in her evidence there is not even a whisper that she tried to run away or raised alarm, itself goes to show that merely because the appellant-accused was a police constable, it cannot be inferred that he has committed rape on the victim.
Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002
25. Mr. Agarwal has placed reliance on various authorities in support of his contention. It is submitted that most of the authorities have been considered by the Supreme court in a landmark decision rendered recently in the case of Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri.) 2387 (S.C.). The Supreme Court has rather summed up the observations in the said case as under:-
State Of Maharashtra vs Deepchand Khushalchand Jain And Others on 22 November, 1982
26. Mr. Agarwal submitted that he does not want to overburden the Court by citing various authorities and, therefore, he has highlighted few of them such as the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain . In which the Supreme Court has observed that "to insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a women that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime." It is submitted that in the same decision the Supreme court has rather set out the guide-lines by which the trial court should examine such cases and particularly those in which police officer are involved. The Supreme Court has observed that when such crime is committed by a person in authority e.q. a police officer, the Court's approach should not be the same as in any other case involving a private citizen. By our criminal laws wide powers are conferred on police officers investigating cognizable offences. The infrastructure of our criminal investigation system recognises and indeed protects the right of a woman to decent and dignified treatment at the hands of the investigating agency and notwithstanding this concern, if a police officer misuses his authority and power while dealing with a young helpless girl aged about 19 or 20 years, her conduct and behaviour must be judged in the back drop of the situation in which she was placed. The purpose and setting, the person and his position, the misuse or abuse of office and the despair of the victim which led to her surrender are all relevant factors which must be present in the mind of the Court while evaluating the conduct-evidence of the prosecutrix. A person in authority, such as a police officer, carries with him and awe of office which is bound to condition the behaviour of his victim. The Court must not be oblivious of the emotional turmoil and the psychological injury that a prosecutrix suffers on being molested or raped. She suffers a tremendous sense of shame and the fear of being shunned by society and her near relatives,including her husband. Instead of treating her with compassion and understanding as one who is an injured victim of crime, she is, more often than not, treated as a sinner and shunned. It must, therefore, be realised that a woman who is subjected to sex-violence would always be slow and hesitant about disclosing her slight. The Court must, therefore, evaluate her evidence in the above background.
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
In the case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra , Supreme Court has observed that: "dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt....." ".....The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly as a learned author Glanville Williams in 'Proof of Guilt' has sapiently observed. Goes much beyond the simple fact that, just one guilty person has gone unpunished, unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless....." ".....a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent....."
Kuldeep K. Mahato vs State Of Bihar on 6 August, 1998
In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar reported in 1998 (37) ACC 462. In the said case the Supreme Court gave benefit to the accused when it found that the prosecutrix was consenting party as she had ample opportunity to run away. Further, that the prosecutrix was not put in physical restraint and her movements were not restricted as no injury were found on her body and private parts.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Polamala Raju & Rajarao on 9 August, 2000
48. Now we turn our attention on the point of sentence. The Union of India has preferred an appeal for enhancement of sentence in the matter. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the special Court has found the appellant-accused guilty for having committed offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and so also under Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of the Act but have imposed minimum sentence. Mr. Agarwal submitted that the appellant accused was well aware that he is a police constable and if the police officer commits offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., the minimum sentence provided is that of 10 years as the appellant-accused has committed rape within the limits of Silvassa police station where he was appointed and, therefore, Sub-section (2) Clause A-1 of Section 376 would be attracted which provided rigorous imprisonment for a term which should not be less than 10 years and which may be for life and shall also be liable for fine. In this case though the learned Special Judge has considered this aspect but instead of imposing minimum sentence prescribed by law, the learned special judge has observed that here one cannot loose the sight of facts that the period of seven years have been passed since the time of incident and it is a hanging sword on the appellant-accused for all the time and he is also under suspension. Under the circumstances, the rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, which according to Mr. Agarwal cannot be mitigating circumstance. Mr. Agarwal has drawn our attention to a decision rendered by three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Polamala Raju & Rajarao wherein it has been observed as under:-