Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.42 seconds)Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of H.P vs Prem Singh on 11 November, 2008
In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem Singh AIR 2009 SC 1010, this Court considered the issue at length and observed as under :-
State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Tabarak Hussain on 3 December, 1982
28. Adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that it has been proved by the prosecution that the victim of the crime was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with intention to marry and intercourse with her. He with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged the modesty of the victim but also attempted rape by undressing her. However, he could not commit intercourse on account of her protest. The victim has stated that the appellant had done bad work with her. The victim reiterated and supported the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate in her evidence during trial also. Nothing could be extracted from her in cross-examination, which may create any doubt on her version or about the veracity of her evidence. The appellant also tried to establish prior relationship with the victim by producing certain letters, which have been denied to be written by the victim by her in evidence and no cogent material could be placed on record to prove the same. The delay in lodging the FIR has properly been explained in the FIR itself and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the delay is immaterial in such cases, particularly when the prosecution has proved its case. The plea of implication of the applicant on the ground of enmity could not be proved by the appellant and no evidence could be adduced to prove any enmity. Thus, the impugned judgment and order has been passed after considering the evidence and material on record and the appellant has rightly and in accordance with law been convicted and punished under Sections 363, 366, 376/511 and 354 IPC, therefore it does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds and it is liable to be dismissed.