Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Dilip & Anr vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2006
In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip and Anr. v. State of M.P. reported in 2001 (II) OLR (SC) 703 : (2001) 21 OCR (SC) 629. The reported case relates to a case of gang rape. The Apex Court on examination of evidence found that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffered from infirmities and her statement was contradicted by medical evidence, serological and forensic reports. The Court on these grounds held that conviction under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. is not sustainable.
Jayasena Pradhan And Ors. vs State on 3 January, 2001
Similarly in the case of Jayasena Pradhan and Ors. v. State reported in 2001 (I) OLR 316 : (2001) 20 OCR 141, this Court in a case under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. observed that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and the statement of the husband of the prosecutrix is full of infirmities, improbabilities and inconsistencies. Holding thus the appellant in the said appeal were acquitted. As observed earlier, the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.9) is not trustworthy as she has made prevaricating statements at different stages as indicated in the judgment and the allegation of the prosecutrix having been gang raped is not supported by medical evidence. Considering these circumstances, we are of the view that the story put forth by the victim is unbelievable, improbable and contrary to medical evidence. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside the impugned judgment.
1