Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.37 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 August, 2012
"13. This Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter involving gang rape allegations
under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)5. The Court
found totally conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated in the
complaint and what was deposed before Court, resulting in material inconsistencies.
Reversing the conviction and holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a
'sterling witness', the Court opined as under:
Moti Lal vs State Of M.P on 15 July, 2008
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P.
[(2008) 11 SCC 20] has held in paragraph Nos. 7 & 9 as under:
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990
The nature of evidence
required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult
and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence
unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the
circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does
not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should
ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. This position was highlighted
in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash kewalchand Jain (1990 91) scc 550)."