Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.45 seconds)Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 90 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State Of A.P on 29 September, 2006
40. I am of the opinion that the prosecutrix was major
and the accused was her cousin and already married, therefore,
Page 20 of 23
SC No.27/12
FIR No.167/11
State Vs Somveer
PS Kapashera
U/s 366/376 IPC
the marriage could not be performed as per customs prevalent
in the social order to which the accused and the prosecutrix
belonged,otherwise, as per the law laid down in the Yedla
Srinivasa Rao vs State of A.P it is always matter of evidence
whether the consent was obtained willingly or consent has been
obtained by holding a false promise which the accused never
intends to fulfil.
Jayanti Rani Panda vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 16 June, 1983
In this connection, reference may
be made to a decision of the Calcutta High
Court in the case of Jayanti Rani Panda v.
State of West Bengal & Anr., (1984) Cri.L.J.
1535. In that case it was observed that in
order to come within the meaning of
misconception of fact, the fact must have an
immediate relevance.
Uday vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2003
The Apex Court in the judgment Udav v. State
of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 has observed that for
determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix was
voluntary or under a misconception of fact, no straitjacket
formula can be laid down but following factors are to be kept in
mind (i) where a girl was of 19 years of age and had sufficient
intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of
the act she was consenting to; (ii) she was conscious of the fact
that her marriage was difficult on account of caste
considerations; (iii) it was difficult to impute to the appellant
knowledge the prosecutrix had consented in consequences of a
misconception of fact arising from, his promise, and (iv) there
was no evidence to prove conclusively that the appellant never
intended to marry the prosecutrix.
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Vimal Suresh Kamble vs Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. And Another on 8 January, 2003
In this regard, I found support from Vimal Suresh
Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P.& Anr. , AIR 2003 SC 818,
Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 508.