Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
In AIR 1983 SC 753 :(1983 Cri LJ 1096), Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, it has been held in paras 6, 7 and 11 that:-
Pratap Misra And Ors. vs State Of Orissa on 23 February, 1977
21. I have perused the judgment. In that case the Hon'ble Judges of the apex Court on consideration of the entire evidence found that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with tacit consent of the prosecutrix who was a pregnant woman and in connivance with her husband. There was no material at all to prove the allegation of rape and the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecutrix and further the circumstances proved in the case and the conduct of the prosecutrix and her husband itself was inconsistent with the allegation of rape. The proposition of law settled in Pratap Mishra's case (supra) is un-disputed. However, the facts of that case was different than the facts of the present case and each case has to be seen on the basis of the appreciation of evidence produced on the record.
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri Narayan on 30 July, 1992
The trial Court is right in his reasoning that the prosecutrix is a unmarried girl. She had been sexually assaulted by the appellant. In Indian society, the victim of such crime would ordinarily consult relatives and rather hesitate to approach the police since it involves the question of morality and chastity of the victim apart from bringing a bad name to the family. The reasoning of the trial Court is supported by judgment of the apex Court (See : State of Rajasthan v. Narayan, (1992) 3 SCC 615 : (1992 Cri LJ 3655). The prosecutrix herein was residing in the house of her sister and brother-in-law far away from her parents. It has come in the evidence that her parents belong to a remote area of tehsil Anni in district Kullu. In such a situation, it was but natural for the prosecutrix to appraise her brother-in-law and sister about the incident before approaching the police.
Rameshwar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 1951
7. It is now time to tackle the pivotal issue as regards the need for insisting on corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix in sex-offences. This Court, in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, (1952) 3 SCR 377 at p. 386 : AIR 1952 SC 54 at p. 57 : (1952 Cri LJ 547), has declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The utterance of the Court in Rameshwar may be replayed, across the time-gap of three decades which have whistled past, in the inimitable voice of Vivian Bose, J. who spoke for the Court --
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Raghubir Singh on 18 February, 1993
22. In case the submission of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, conviction on be based on it. However, in the present case, her statement is corroborated by Megh Nath (PW-4), Shiv Dass (PW-5) and Sher Singh (PW-9) besides by medical evidence as well. The corroborative evidence is sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime. There is no legal principle of universal application laying down that the absence of injuries on the back portion of the prosecutrix would be fatal to the prosecution case and rule out the commission of rape on the prosecutrix. However, case has to be approached on facts and circumstances in which the offence was committed. (See: (1993) 2 SCC 622, State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, 1990 Cri LJ 1434; Jito alias Ajit Kumar v. State of H.P. and 1995 Cri LJ 158, Parkash Chand v. State of H.P. It was contended that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution making the prosecution story of doubtful nature. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the prosecutrix stated that she remained in the house of her sister from 17-4-1992 to 20-4-1992 all alone as her sister and brother-in-law were not there and went to village Kasol but PW-Shiv Dass said that PW-Megh Nath and his wife Roshani were present in village Chhinjra on the day of occurrence. The plea is opposed by Shri Kashmiri Lal learned Additional Advocate General. He contended that a sentence from here and a sentence from there cannot be used to condemn the prosecution case as false. The minor discrepancies are likely to occur for variety of reasons, namely, social status of the parties, education, time within which the witnesses had witnessed the occurrence and when their deposition is recorded by the Court etc. etc. These minor variations cannot always be termed to be embellishment, concoction and padding. It is not the case of the appellant that the prosecutrix and the other witnesses were inimically disposed towards him.
Ajit Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 May, 1974
22. In case the submission of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, conviction on be based on it. However, in the present case, her statement is corroborated by Megh Nath (PW-4), Shiv Dass (PW-5) and Sher Singh (PW-9) besides by medical evidence as well. The corroborative evidence is sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime. There is no legal principle of universal application laying down that the absence of injuries on the back portion of the prosecutrix would be fatal to the prosecution case and rule out the commission of rape on the prosecutrix. However, case has to be approached on facts and circumstances in which the offence was committed. (See: (1993) 2 SCC 622, State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, 1990 Cri LJ 1434; Jito alias Ajit Kumar v. State of H.P. and 1995 Cri LJ 158, Parkash Chand v. State of H.P. It was contended that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution making the prosecution story of doubtful nature. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the prosecutrix stated that she remained in the house of her sister from 17-4-1992 to 20-4-1992 all alone as her sister and brother-in-law were not there and went to village Kasol but PW-Shiv Dass said that PW-Megh Nath and his wife Roshani were present in village Chhinjra on the day of occurrence. The plea is opposed by Shri Kashmiri Lal learned Additional Advocate General. He contended that a sentence from here and a sentence from there cannot be used to condemn the prosecution case as false. The minor discrepancies are likely to occur for variety of reasons, namely, social status of the parties, education, time within which the witnesses had witnessed the occurrence and when their deposition is recorded by the Court etc. etc. These minor variations cannot always be termed to be embellishment, concoction and padding. It is not the case of the appellant that the prosecutrix and the other witnesses were inimically disposed towards him.
1