Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 90 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
T. Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2006
In T.Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401,
while relying on State through Inspector of Police, Andhra Pradesh
v. K. Narasimhachary, [2005 (8) SCALE 266], it is held as under:
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
6. We have heard Learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned APP
for the State and Learned counsel for the respondent No.2. We have
gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner
Crl.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 4 of 10
and respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that on 20.3.2012, an FIR was lodged for the offence committed on
22.8.2011 by respondent No.2, who committed the unlawful act after
putting the prosecutrix under threat. The prosecutrix was just 16 ½
years of age and was studying in 10th class at that time. The family of
the prosecutrix is from a lower middle class and because of the social
stigma of being shamed in the society and being parents of three girl
children, they were scared to report the said incident, with time they
had gained courage to report the incident. One of the another reason
stated for reluctancy of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to
the police station and to make a complaint about the incident, was
because they were concerned about the reputation of the prosecutrix
and the honour of the entire family. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State
of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 384. Mr. Katyal
submits that while there was a delay in the registration of the FIR, the
reason for the delay is well-explained and is founded on well-
established principles. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that, even otherwise respondent No.2 had threatened of dire
consequences in case the prosecutrix reports or discloses the offence.
It is also stated that, in view of Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 and Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the learned
Trial Court ought to have convicted respondent No.2. Mr. Katyal
further stated that, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that there
was consent of the prosecutrix to have sex with respondent No.2, even
then the same cannot be treated as voluntarily, as such consent cannot
Crl.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 5 of 10
condone the offence.