Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.63 seconds)
Chenga Tshering Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 16 April, 2018 cites

Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 25 February, 2011

15. The argument that the Learned Trial Court failed to alter the Charge that had been framed under the POCSO Act despite the 14 (2003) 8 SCC 551 Crl.A. No.06 of 2017 16 Chenga Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim victim being above 18 years, merits no consideration herein, as no such objection was raised before the Learned Trial Court. It is settled law that an objection cannot be raised for the first time before the Appellate Forum when it was not made before the Court of first instance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 212 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Bhupinder Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 October, 2003

To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one 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 woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance (See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P.). Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed hereinabove." [emphasis supplied] This would be appropriate and applicable in the matter at hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 233 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next