Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
M. Mohammed Abdulla vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 25 September, 2007
In Mohammed v. State of
Kerala [1987 (2) KLT 565] referred to in Santhosh
Madhavan v. Circle Inspector of Police (2008 (3) KLT 558)
it was held " to constitute the offence of rape, it should not be
necessary that there should be complete penetration of the
penis with emission of semen and rupture of the hymen, and
even an attempt at penetration is sufficient. Partial penetration
of the penis within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum
with or without emission of semen is sufficient for other purpose
of law".
Wahid Khan vs State Of M.P on 1 December, 2009
-penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual
intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. This Court
has accordingly held in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P.
(2010) 2 SCC 9 : (2010) 1 SCC ( Crl.) 1208 that even
the slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an
offence of rape and depth of penetration is immaterial. In
the aforesaid case, this Court has relied on the very same
passage from Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology (22nd Edn.) quoted above.
Santhosh Madhavan @ Amrutha Chaithanya vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2008
In Mohammed v. State of
Kerala [1987 (2) KLT 565] referred to in Santhosh
Madhavan v. Circle Inspector of Police (2008 (3) KLT 558)
it was held " to constitute the offence of rape, it should not be
necessary that there should be complete penetration of the
penis with emission of semen and rupture of the hymen, and
even an attempt at penetration is sufficient. Partial penetration
of the penis within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum
with or without emission of semen is sufficient for other purpose
of law".
Ranjit Hazarika vs State Of Assam on 28 February, 1996
This was reiterated in several cases including Ranjit
Hazarika v. State of Assam [(1988) SCC (Crl.)
Amar Singh And Anr. vs The State Of Haryana on 9 August, 1983
1725) and
Amar Kumar and another v. State of Haryana (2004 SCC
( Crl.)1266). It has been held that a minor penetration itself
will be sufficient to constitute offence under Section 376. It was
further held that non- rupture of hymen, absence of injury on
victim's private part, etc. do not belie the testimony of the victim.