Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.47 seconds)Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013
2. Present criminal appeals (two) arise from the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 passed by Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.12, Allahabad, in S.T. No. 368/2010 (State vs Jitendra Kumar Kushwaha & Anr.), arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2009, Police Station Mutthiganj, District Allahabad whereby both appellants Jitendra Kumar Kushwaha and Vijay Kumar Maurya have been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to further undergo additional imprisonment of one year.
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 17 January, 2006
In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 92, the Supreme Court observed as below :
Radhu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2007
In Radhu v. State of M.P., (2007) 12 SCC 57, the Supreme Court made following pertinent observations with respect to care required to be taken by Courts in rape cases :
Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009
32. Then, in Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, the Supreme Court laid down that the version of the prosecutrix in rape case may be disbelieved if it is wholly improbable and belies logic. In that regard, it was observed as below :