Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Abbas Ahmad Choudhary vs State Of Assam on 25 November, 2009
In 'Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam', (2010) 12
SCC 115, observing that a case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt as any other case and that there is no presumption that a
prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held :
Raju vs State Of M.P. on 21 January, 2016
In another case 'Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh', (2008) 15
SCC 133, the Supreme Court stated that the testimony of a victim of rape
has to be tested as if she is an injured witness but cannot be presumed to
be a gospel truth.
Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 August, 2012
In 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi', (2012)
8 SCC 21, the Supreme Court commented about the quality of the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix which could be made basis to convict the
accused. It held :
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 1991
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
'Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', 1991
Crl.L.J.2653, the statement given in the cross-examination was rightly and
correctly ignored or discarded. The Trial Court observed that there was
possibility of the appellants to have won over the prosecutrix and for that
reason, she did not opt to implicate them.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 311 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009
In 'Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi)', (2009)
15 SCC 566, the Supreme Court held :
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 17 January, 2006
In 'Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr.', 2006 (10) SCC 92, the Apex Court while reiterating that in a rape
case, the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of prosecutrix
if it is capable of inspiring the confidence in the mind of the Court, put a
word of caution that the Court should be extremely careful while
accepting the testimony when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to
have happened. This is what has been stated :
1