Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Has Been Framed Under Section 354-A Of ... vs In Re : Sujit Mondal on 17 June, 2013
24. During the course of arguments, learned defence counsel also argued that
prosecutrix did not intend to marry accused and she filed the present complaint
in order to get rid of from the accused and this fact is evident from the
FIR No.986/14 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376 of IPC State vs Sujit KUmar 12 of 14
documents Ex.D1 ie RTI application through which necessary information qua
court marriage of accused and prosecutrix between the parties were sought,
notice to SDM, Hauz Khas and copy of supporting affidavits duly signed by the
parties. In her cross-examination, PW3 stated that she did not apply for court
marriage in the office of SDM though she collected form from the office.
However, this plea of the prosecutrix is falsified by the documents Ex.D1. The
copy of application form send to the Marriage Officer/SDM clearly bears the
name and signatures of both parties. Supporting affidavits also bear signature of
both the parties. Prosecutrix also admitted that she had signed on affidavit as
well as application form. She also stated that her affidavit was signed and
attested at Tis Hazari Courts. She also stated that those documents were
prepared with a view to perform marriage. She handed over her signed
documents to one Mr. Rajesh, however, he did not come again and she did not
know who had applied for court marriage before SDM. However, prosecutrix did
not disclose as to why said Mr. Rajesh did not come again and as to what he
had done with those documents, if he had not applied/submitted the said form
before SDM on behalf of prosecutrix. All these facts creates doubt over the
veracity of the testimony of the prosecutrix. The aforesaid discussed facts and
circumstances also show that it can not be said that since beginning accused
had no intention to marry prosecutrix.
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Delimitation Act, 1972
Section 90 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Deepak Gulati vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2013
16. Further, factum of presumption of no consent on behalf of prosecutrix u/s 114A
of Evidence Act, 1872 was discussed in case where there was allegation of rape
on account of false promise of marriage in case of Deepak Gulati vs State of
Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675) : AIR 2013 SC 2071 and it was observed as
under:-
Jayanti Rani Panda vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 16 June, 1983
In the case of "Jayanti Rani Panda vs State of WB, MANU/WB/0299/1983",
the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as under:-