Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Emperor vs Mahadeo Tatya on 3 December, 1941 cites

Emperor vs Mir Mazarali Inayatali Kureshi on 19 January, 1933

3. I may say at once that to our minds the sentence of transportation is indefensible for an offence of this nature. The ordinary sentence for rape varies from three years to five years. In a very bad case seven years is sometimes given. But I have never myself known a sentence of transportation for life, and Mr. Velinker says that in his fifty years experience at the criminal bar he has never heard of such a sentence, in a rape case. The learned Judge took the view that the case was a particularly grave one, because the accused was a police constable. No doubt the complainant may have been induced to go to the accused's room more readily because she knew he was a police constable, but he was not on duty at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed. It is not a case of a police constable taking advantage of his official position to rape a woman placed in his charge. It is certainly not a case so grave as. that reported in Emperor v. Mazarali (1933) 35 Bom. L.R. 474, where the complainant had been allowed to spend the night in the Sub-Inspector's Office, because she had no home to go to, and two police constables took the opportunity to rape her. In that case the sentence passed was four years. Had we considered the conviction justified, we should certainly have very materially reduced the sentence.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Surendra Nath Das vs Emperor on 28 August, 1933

He referred to the rule which requires corroboration, and pointed out, accurately enough, that it is not a statutory rule and that the verdict of a jury based on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant would not be bad in law. But he certainly did not tell the jury that it was their duty not to act on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant in view of the experience of the Courts that such evidence is not sufficiently reliable. That is the rule both in this country and in England. I do not know that I am prepared to go as far as the Calcutta High Court went in Surendra Nath Das v. Emperor1 in saying that the corroboration of the complainant's evidence in a rape case must be dealt with on the same footing as the corroboration of an accomplice's evidence. Subsequent conduct of the complainant in a rape case is a type of corroboration which has no application in the case of an accomplice.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Harendra Prosad Bagchi vs Emperor on 22 April, 1940

It is, of course, obvious, as pointed out by the Calcutta High Court in Harendra Prasad v. Emperor2 that a prosecutrix in rape cases is not an accomplice. If she was, the offence would not be rape unless she was under fourteen years of age. But in our view the Calcutta High Court has not thrown any doubt on the general rule that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case must be corroborated.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1