Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.24 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
42. This Court therefore holds that the use of reasoning/language which diminishes
the offence and tends to trivialize the survivor, is especially to be avoided under all
circumstances. Thus, the following conduct, actions or situations are hereby deemed
irrelevant, e.g. - to say that the survivor had in the past consented to such or similar
acts or that she behaved promiscuously, or by her acts or clothing, provoked the
alleged action of the accused, that she behaved in a manner unbecoming of chaste or
40State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., 1996 SCC (2) 384.
Section 376D in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Sumit Mehta vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 13 September, 2013
In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) this court, with respect to the
conditions that can be imposed validly under section 438(2) of the CrPC, observed
that:
State Of M.P vs Madanlal on 1 July, 2015
28. It was urged that the observations made in Kunal Kumar and Sumit Mehta
ought to be followed while imposing bail conditions. The appellants relying upon the
observations made in para 18 of State of M.P v. Madanlal,26 submit that in cases of
sexual offences, the concept of compromise, especially in the form of marriage
between the accused and the prosecutrix shall not be thought of, as any such attempt
would be offensive to the woman’s dignity.
Kunal Kumar Tiwari @ Kunal Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2017
In Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar (supra), this court while dealing with
Section 437(3)(c), Cr. PC (general conditions of bail) observed as follows: