Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.27 seconds)

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Mango Ram on 24 August, 2000

Section 90, though, does not define "consent", but  describes what is not consent.  "Consent", for the purpose of  section 375, requires voluntary participation not only after  the  exercise   of   intelligence  based  on  the   knowledge  of  the   significance and moral  quality of the act but after having  fully   exercised   the   choice   between   resistance   and   assent.  Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only   on a careful study of all relevant circumstances.   (See State  of H. P. v. Mango Ram.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 152 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 17 August, 2007

In Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and Anr,  AIR 2007 SC 3059, this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 416­ 17, para 9­11) "9. The   crucial   expression   in   Section   375   which  defines 'rape' as 'against her will'. It seems to connote  that   the   offending   act   was   despite   resistance   and  opposition of the woman.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 157 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next