Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.29 seconds)Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Rafiq vs State Of U.P on 14 August, 1980
"11. The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. An accused cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. Judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal juggler. A similar view was expressed by this Court in Rafiq v. State of U.P. (1980 Cri LJ 1344) with some anguish.
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
The same was echoed again in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983 Cri LJ 1096). It was observed in the said case that in the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is an in-built assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case.
State Of Maharashtra vs Deepchand Khushalchand Jain And Others on 22 November, 1982
12. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. (See State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990 Cri LJ 889)). Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance."