Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.31 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Uday vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2003
In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the
Courts provide at best guidance to the judicial mind while
considering a question of consent, but the Court must, in
each case, consider the evidence before it and the
surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion,
because each case has its own peculiar facts which may
have a bearing on the question whether the consent was
voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact. It
must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that
the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every
ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of
them.‖
Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 17 August, 2007
In Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar &
Anr, AIR 2007 SC 3059, this Court held as under:
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 3 November, 2004
As observed by this Court inDeelip Singh @ Dilip
Kumar v. State of Bihar (2005 (1) SCC 88), Section
90cannot be considered as an exhaustive definition of
consent for the purposes ofIPC. The normal connotation
and concept of consent is not intended to be excluded.
Sat Prakash vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 9 December, 2015
30. After having minute consideration of requirement of
Section 366A of the IPC relates with allowing indulgence of the
victim under illicit intercourse with the other than the kidnappers. The
same view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sat
Prakash v. State of Haryana as reported in (2015) 16 SCC 475 under
para 5, 6 which are as follows:-