Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.87 seconds)
Bunty vs State (G.N.C.T.) Of Delhi on 16 March, 2011 cites

S. Varadarajan vs State Of Madras on 9 September, 1964

In S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, Supreme Court has held that there is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though it cannot be laid down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361. Where the minor leaves her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she is doing, voluntarily joins the accused person, the accused cannot be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the Crl. A. No. 846/2009 Page 7 of 10 formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian. Accordingly, in my view Trial Court was not right in convicting the appellant under Section 363 IPC. Thus, conviction of the appellant under Section 363 IPC is set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 778 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Babloo Pasi vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 3 October, 2008

In Babloo vs. The State, reported in 2011 (1) JCC 359, a Single Judge of this Court keeping in view the conduct of prosecutrix that she had willingly accompanied the appellant and stayed with him, has taken a lenient view while awarding the sentence less than the minimum prescribed under Section 376 IPC to the appellant. Keeping in mind that appellant had Crl. A. No. 846/2009 Page 8 of 10 remained in incarceration for about five years and eight months, accused was handed down sentence equivalent to the period he had remained in jail. It was also observed that quantum of sentence has to be decided after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case. For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the court. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum, the requirement is that the court has to record "adequate and special reasons". The fact that prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the appellant was taken as "adequate and special reasons" for reducing the sentence less than the sentence minimum prescribed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 158 - D K Jain - Full Document
1