Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Manoj Kumar Pandey on 7 November, 2008
In the judgment reported as State
of UP vs. Manoj Kumar Pandey [(2009) 1 SCC 72], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that the consistent view of that Court has
been that the normal rule regarding the duty of prosecution to
explain the delay in lodging FIR and the lack of prejudice and / or
prejudice caused because of such delay in lodging of FIR does not
per se apply to cases of rape.
Santhosh Moolya & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 26 April, 2010
In the judgment reported as
Santhosh Moolya and another Vs. State of Karnataka [(2010) 5
SCC 455], the prosecutrix was an illiterate and uneducated
labourer and there was delay of 42 days in reporting the incident to
the police but the delay was not considered significant.
Satpal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 28 July, 2010
In the
judgment reported as Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2010) 8
SCC 714], there was a delay of about four months in reporting the
matter to the police and again the delay was not considered very
significant and the justification given by the prosecution was
accepted.
Beeru vs State Nct Of Delhi on 11 December, 2013
In the judgment reported as Beeru Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Criminal A No.1079/2010 decided on December 11, 2013],
the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as
follows:-