Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.59 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs M. Devendrappa & Anr on 16 January, 2002
In State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr., (2002) 3
SCC 89, it was held that while exercising powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section
itself. It was further held as under:-
Vineet Kumar And Ors vs State Of Up & Anr on 31 March, 2017
12. Recently, in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr. (2017) 13 SCC 369, this Court has observed as under:
Uday vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2003
"The remaining question is whether on the basis
of the evidence on record, it is reasonably possible
to hold that the accused with the fraudulent in-
tention of inducing her to sexual intercourse,
made a false promise to marry. We have no doubt
14
that the accused did hold out the promise to
marry her and that was the predominant reason
for the victim girl to agree to the sexual intimacy
with him. PW 12 was also too keen to marry him
as she said so specifically. But we find no evi-
dence which gives rise to an inference beyond rea-
sonable doubt that the accused had no intention
to marry her at all from the inception and that the
promise he made was false to his knowledge. No
circumstances emerging from the prosecution evi-
dence establish this fact. On the other hand, the
statement of PW 12 that “later on”, the accused
became ready to marry her but his father and oth-
ers took him away from the village would indicate
that the accused might have been prompted by a
genuine intention to marry which did not materi-
alise on account of the pressure exerted by his
family elders. It seems to be a case of breach of
promise to marry rather than a case of false prom-
ise to marry. On this aspect also, the observations
of this Court in Uday case at para 24 come to the
aid of the appellant".
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 3 November, 2004
In Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1
SCC 88, the Court framed the following two questions relating to con-
sent:-
Deepak Gulati vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2013
In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, the
Court has drawn a distinction between rape and consensual sex. This
is a case of a prosecutrix aged 19 years at the time of the incident.
She had an inclination towards the accused. The accused had been
giving her assurances of the fact that he would get married to her.
The prosecutrix, therefore, left her home voluntarily and of her own
free will to go with the accused to get married to him. She called the
accused on a phone number given to her by him, to ask him why he
had not met her at the place that had been pre-decided by them. She
also waited for him for a long time, and when he finally arrived, she
15
went with him to a place called Karna Lake where they indulged in
sexual intercourse. She did not raise any objection at that stage and
made no complaints to anyone. Thereafter, she went to Kurukshetra
with the accused, where she lived with his relatives. Here too, the
prosecutrix voluntarily became intimate with the accused. She then,
for some reason, went to live in the hostel at Kurukshetra University
illegally, and once again came into contact with the accused at Birla
Mandir there. Thereafter, she even proceeded with the accused to the
old bus-stand in Kurukshetra, to leave for Ambala so that the two of
them could get married at the court in Ambala. At the bus station, the
accused was arrested by the police. The Court held that the physical
relationship between the parties had clearly developed with the con-
sent of the prosecutrix as there was neither a case of any resistance
nor had she raised any complaint anywhere at any time, despite the
fact that she had been living with the accused for several days and
had travelled with him from one place to another. The Court further
held that it is not possible to apprehend the circumstances in which a
charge of deceit/rape can be leveled against the accused.