Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (4.15 seconds)

The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996

i) In Ganesan v. State 9, Vijay v. State of M.P. 10, State of U.P. v. Pappu 11, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh 12, State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh 13, Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. 14, Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana 15 and Rai Sandeep v. State 9 . (2020) 10 SCC 573 10 . (2010) 8 SCC 191 11 . (2005) 3 SCC 594 12 . (1996) 2 SCC 384 13 . (1993) 2 SCC 622 14 . (2010) 2 SCC 9 15 . (2011) 7 SCC 130 28 KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.493 of 2014 (NCT of Delhi) 16, the Apex Court categorically held that there can be conviction on sole evidence of prosecutrix, and in case, the Court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to injury. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. There is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1219 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next