Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.38 seconds)

Suresh N. Bhusare And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 August, 1998

"17. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. (Vide: Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 220)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 94 - Full Document

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

13. Prosecurtix having herself accompanied the appellant to his village staying with him for about one week, it cannot be said that appellant had taken her away from the protection of her lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 361 IPC. Reliance is also placed on S. Veradarajan SC No.110/13 State vs. Rajan Page 19 of 23 vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1965 SC 942.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 778 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003

32. The other reasons which support my decision that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable suspicion and doubt are firstly that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecutrix as enumerated here in above and those have created doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution case. My decision in this regard finds support by principles of law laid down in a case Babu Lal and Others v. State, 1994 JCC 111 wherein, the Delhi High Court observed that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 68 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next