Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.46 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
26. Even in cases where there is some material to show that the
victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no inference of the
victim being a woman of "easy virtues" or a woman of "loose
moral character" can be drawn. Such a woman has a right to
protect her dignity and cannot be subjected to rape only for that
reason. She has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual
intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a
vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone
and everyone. Merely because a woman is of easy virtue, her
evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone rather it is to
be cautiously appreciated. (Vide State of Maharashtra v.
Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
and State of U.P. v. Pappu)
Narendra Kumar Rajgarhia vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 July, 2014
The Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 has held as under :-
Vimal Suresh Kamble vs Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. And Another on 8 January, 2003
Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of
probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a
high degree of probability having been shown to exist in
view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge.
However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the
version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search
for evidence, direct or substantial (sic circumstantial),
which may lend assurance to her testimony. (Vide Vimal
Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P.and Vishnu v.
State of Maharashtra.)
Suresh N. Bhusare And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 August, 1998
22. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering
from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other
material, the prosecutrix making deliberate improvement
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 v. State of
Maharashtra.)
Gappe Alias Vimlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2017
The Court however, further observed: (Raju case, SCC p. 141,
para 11)
"11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the
greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the
same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal
distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well.
The accused must also be protected against the possibility
of false implication ... there is no presumption or any basis
for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always
correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."
Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009
In Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court held as
under: (SCC p. 568, para 9)
"9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the
prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to
hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story
is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to
the very principles which govern the appreciation of
evidence in a criminal matter."
State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Madhukar Narayan Mardikar on 23 October, 1990
26. Even in cases where there is some material to show that the
victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no inference of the
victim being a woman of "easy virtues" or a woman of "loose
moral character" can be drawn. Such a woman has a right to
protect her dignity and cannot be subjected to rape only for that
reason. She has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual
intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a
vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone
and everyone. Merely because a woman is of easy virtue, her
evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone rather it is to
be cautiously appreciated. (Vide State of Maharashtra v.
Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
and State of U.P. v. Pappu)