Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sat Pal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 November, 1981
In Sat
Pal Vs. State of Punjab 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 92,
it has been held that in the absence of injuries on external as well as internal
parts of body of the prosecutrix, it cannot be held that prosecutrix gave her
consent.
Moti Lal vs State Of M.P on 15 July, 2008
As ruled in Moti Lal Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh 2008(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal)
796 (SC) if the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong
motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily
have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. In the Indian setting refusal
refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence
of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to the injury. 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. Prosecutrix is a competent witness under Section
118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weightage
as is attached to an injured in a case of physical violence. Physical scar on a
rape victim 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."
State Of Karnataka vs Bantara Sudhakara @ Sudha & Anr on 18 July, 2008
As observed in State of Karnataka
Vs. Bantara Sudhakara alias Sudha and Another 2008(3)Recent
Criminal Reports(Criminal) 923(SC), "The question of consent is really a
matter of defence by the accused and it was for him to place materials to
show that there was consent. It is significant to note that during cross-
examination and the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. plea
of consent was not taken or pleaded. In fact in the statement under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. the plea was complete denial and false implication." In the
case at hand, the appellant during cross-examination of the prosecution
witensses or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. did not
take the plea that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. He has also not
produced any evidence showing that it was a consentedact.The appellant has
Criminal Appeal No. 867 SB of 2003(O&M) 13
come up with the plea that the police wanted to know the names of the boys
who used to come to him and he did not disclose their names and for this
reason he was whisked away from his house and was falsely implicated in
this case. He has not disclosed in which case those boys were wanted by the
police or what was their connection with this occurrence. This plea seems
to be alien to the prosecution version. Mehar Singh DW-1 has proved
Ex.DB. This document has no relevancy with the facts of the case nor in
any manner advances the cause of the appellant. It is in the cross-
examination of this witness that "At the time when Gurtej Singh (referring
to the accused-appellant) fled/managed to escape from Police Station I was
posted in the Police Station." It is unbelievable that the accused would have
run away from the Police Station. May be that to sabotage the prosecution
story and in order to protect him, he would have been made to run away.
Jaswant Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 2009
In
Jaswant Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab 2010(1) Recent Criminal
Reports(Criminal) 117, the rape was committed on a minor girl aged 16
years by four accused persons. The case was registered after 15 days when a
complaint was sent to S.S.P. A panchnama was produced in defence.
Prosecutrix stated that her signatures were obtained by giving her beatings.
It was held by the Supreme Court that " It was neither surprising nor
shocking as such instances are galore in this country where the police,
instead of protecting law, take the law into their own hands for extraneous
considerations." In the instant one too extraneous consideration may be the
reason for making the accused-appellant to escape from the Police Station.
Premiya @ Prem Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 September, 2008
Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that Krishan
Kumar father of the prosecutrix (to prevent social victimization, name of the
prosecutrix/victim is not being indicated in view of Premiya alias Prem
Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan 2008(4) Recent Criminal Reports 539
(SC)) made statement before the police in the terms that on 27.7.2001 at
about 1.00 P.M. he alongwith his cousin Telu Ram was present at the latter's
Criminal Appeal No. 867 SB of 2003(O&M) 2
karyana shop. Meanwhile, they heard the shrieks of a girl. They rushed to
the street and heard the cries emitting from the house of Gurnam Singh
father of the accused. By scaling over the wall, they entered the house and
noticed that the accused was committing rape on the prosecutrix, who was a
minor. They both caught hold of the accused and rescued her. She narrated
that when she was on her way back from the Government Girls School,
Bhawanigarh and was passing in front of house of the accused, he capped
her mouth with his hands and dragged her inside the house. He bolted the
door from inside. He threatened to kill her and ravished her forcibly. She
was removed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur by her mother Janki Rani and her
brother Deep Kumar. When the accused was being taken to the Police
Station by the villagers including Krishan Kumar (sic) they came across
S.H.O. Ravinder Singh whom they handed over the person of the accused.
On the basis of this statement, the case was registered. After completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur who committed the case to the court of
Sessions for trial of the accused.
Dhananjoy Chaterjee vs State Of W.B on 11 January, 1994
It was also held that undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under
such serious threats. Reverting back to the present one the prosecutrix was
a student. She was returning from the school, when she fell prey to the
sexual lust of the accused-appellant. It will be a mockery of justice to reduce
the sentence in this case. The accused-appellant was got arrested by
launching tirade against the police. The imposition of appropriate
punishment is the manner in which the courts responds to the society's cry
for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that court should impose
punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence
of the crime as ruled in Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal
1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 429.
Ravji @ Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1995
The Court will be
failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for crime which
has been committed not only against the individual victim, but also against
the society to which the criminal and victim belong as held in Ravji Vs.
State of Rajasthan 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases 175. In the instant
case, the conscience of the rape victim, her parents relatives and co-villagers
Criminal Appeal No. 867 SB of 2003(O&M) 16
would be shocked, if the sentence is reduced to the already undergone. The
doctrine of proportionality contemplates that the sentence must
commensurate with the gravity of offence. Thus, the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellant is turned down.