Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.88 seconds)
Tshering Thendup Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 3 June, 2024 cites

Chandra Bahadur Rai And Another vs State Of Sikkim on 26 June, 2020

False accusation by the victim 6 (v). The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, PW-6 (appellant‟s sister), PW-7 (appellant‟s mother) and PW-8 (appellant‟s aunt), during their cross-examination, introduced the story of the appellant rejecting the proposal to marry the victim‟s sister. On the basis of these statements, the defence raises a plea of false accusation by the victim to avenge the rejection. 6 (vi). The above suggestion was made to various prosecution witnesses by the defence. While the witnesses who were related to Crl. A. No.13 of 2022 7 Tshering Thendup Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim the victim denied the suggestion, the appellant‟s family members and relative supported the suggestion. Both PW-6 (appellant‟s sister) and PW-7 (appellant‟s mother) were declared hostile and cross-examined. Their evidence is to be approached with caution. Both PW-6 (appellant‟s sister) and PW-7 (appellant‟s mother) were confronted with their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they had supported the prosecution case as narrated by the victim. However, both of them denied having made such statements to the police. It is apparent that PW-6 (appellant‟s sister) and PW-7 (appellant‟s mother) introduced the allegation that the appellant had rejected the proposal of marrying the victim‟s sister for the first time in Court. Although, both of them being natural witnesses were put up by the prosecution as their witnesses, they turned hostile and did not support their statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. This was quite apparent as both of them were closely related to the appellant who was accused of a heinous crime. The evidence of PW- 8 (appellant‟s aunt) on this aspect is in the nature of hearsay evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Trial Judge has correctly appreciated their evidence and rejected the theory sought to be propounded in defence of the appellant. Consensual sexual intercourse 6 (vii). There is no direct suggestion made by the defence of consensual sexual intercourse.
Sikkim High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 6 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 14 February, 2020

In Santosh Prasad (supra), the appellant was accused of rape by the victim in the preceding night. The victim alleged that after raping her he had run away, after which she had raised an alarm and the neighbours had come including her relatives to whom she had disclosed about the incident. After their arrival, she had lodged the first information report at the police station. The wearing apparels of the victim was seized and sent to FSL. Medical report of the victim was also collected and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. Eight witnesses including the victim were examined. Three of them did not support the case of the prosecution. The accused was thereafter tried and found guilty of the offences of sections 376(1) and 450 of the IPC. The Supreme Court found that the accused was convicted solely upon the deposition of the victim and neither any independent witness nor the medical evidence supported the prosecution case. Evidence of a land dispute between the parties had been brought on record which was admitted even by the victim that there was enmity with the accused. The medical evidence did not suggest any evidence which would reflect any physical or pathological evidence of rape although it was opined that possibility of rape could not be ruled out. The FSL report was inconclusive leaving the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as the only evidence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence of the victim and noted that there were material contradictions in her deposition and the version of the alleged incident given by her was not believable. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the victim in such cases should be reliable and trustworthy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 109 - M R Shah - Full Document

Phool Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2021

20. While rejecting the submissions on behalf of the accused that there was no external or internal injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix and therefore it may be a case of consent, the Supreme Court in Phool Singh (supra) opined that no such question was asked, even remotely to the prosecutrix in her cross- 3 (2020) 10 SCC 573 4 (2010) 8 SCC 191 5 (1990) 1 SCC 550 6 (2005) 3 SCC 594 7 (1996) 2 SCC 384 8 (2002) 9 SCC 86 9 (1993) 2 SCC 622 10 (2011) 7 SCC 130 11 (2012) 8 SCC 21 12 (2019) 11 SCC 575 13 (2018) 18 SCC 34 Crl. A. No.13 of 2022 19 Tshering Thendup Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim examination. We find that in the present case the victim was not even suggested that the act was a consensual one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 154 - M R Shah - Full Document

Ganesan Rep By Its Power Agent G. Rukmani ... vs The Commissioner The Tamil Nadu Hindu ... on 3 May, 2019

While doing so the Supreme Court examined its previous judgments rendered in Ganesan vs. State3; Vijay vs. State of M.P.4; State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain5; State of U.P. vs. Pappu6; State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh7; State of Orissa vs. Thakara 8 9 Besra ; State of H.P. vs. Raghubir Singh ; Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana10; Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi)11, State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary12 and Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana13. The Supreme Court, thereafter, concluded:
Supreme Court of India Cites 76 - Cited by 90 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next