Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of H.P vs Prem Singh on 11 November, 2008
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem Singh (2009) 1 SCC 420 has held that the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Vishnu @ Undrya vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 2005
27. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the incident took place in the month of Ramzan and the accused took the victim away from her house on the pretext of getting her banana and apple. It is evident that the victim was enticed and taken away from the lawful custody of her parents on a false pretext of getting her banana and apple, which amply proves the motive of the accused. No evidence whatsoever is available on record to suggest that the victim was major on the date of incident, who had gone with her sweet will, with the accused. No evidence has also been led by the accused on this point. Regarding rape, the victim P.W.-5 has specifically mentioned that she was raped by accused without her consent and this fact has been corroborated from the testimony of doctor P.W.-4, who has mentioned that the victim's hymen was found torn. The doctor P.W.-4 has mentioned in her cross-examination that it is possible that victim's hymen could have been torn about 2-3 days back, but it is well settled, that the doctor's evidence is only advisory in nature and where trustworthy ocular evidence is available, then that ocular evidence has to be given precedence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283, has held that expert medical evidence is not binding on ocular evidence. Opinion of medical officer is to assist the Court as he is not witness of fact and evidence given by medical officer is of advisory character and not binding on witness of fact. In view of this, the doctor's opinion that the hymen of the victim could have been torn 2-3 days prior to her examination, can not over-ride and make the testimony of the victim, unreliable.
Ram Kripal Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 16 May, 2007
28. Learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that no spermatozoa has been found in the vaginal smear of the victim. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kripal Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 11 SCC 265 has held that the sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape. In this case, victim P.W.-5 has specifically mentioned in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination that she was raped by the accused appellant. It is not essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused ejaculated during rape. If the prosecution proves that the accused has penetrated the vagina of the victim with his penis, then the accused is liable to be punished for the offence of rape. In view of this, it is not essential for the prosecution to prove that spermatozoa were present in the vaginal smear of the victim.
Prithi Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 January, 1989
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prithi Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 702 and Narayanamma Vs. State of Karnataka, (1994) 5 SCC 728 has held that mere absence of spermatozoa in vaginal smear cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case. In light of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal smear of the victim, does not make the prosecution story doubtful.