Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (7.57 seconds)Mahadeo Laxman Sarane And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2007
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh as
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 773, the same principle has also been
followed by the Hon'ble Apex court as held in the case of Mahadeo v.
State of Maharashtra (supra).
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
"7...The submission overlooks the fact that in India women
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.21 of 2015 dt.24-08-2017 17
are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults and if the
prosecutrix happens to be a married person she will not do
anything without informing her husband. Merely because
the complaint was lodged less than promptly does not raise
the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to
go to the police is because of society's attitude towards such
women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than
comfort and sympathise with her. Therefore, delay in
lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily
indicate that her version is false..." 26. Likewise, in State of
Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors.[(1996) 2 SCC 384], it was
observed: "8...The courts cannot overlook the fact that in
sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due
to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the
prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and
complain about the incident which concerns the reputation
of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only
after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual
offence is generally lodged..."
Bhupinder Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 October, 2003
To insist on
corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate
one who is a victim of the lust of another with an
accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It
would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her
claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated
in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.21 of 2015 dt.24-08-2017 18
crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman
who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed
with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with
doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of
corroboration has no substance {See Bhupinder Sharma v.
State of Himachal Pradesh[(2003) 8 SCC 551]}.
Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we
even find enough corroborative material as well, which is
discussed hereinabove."
Jernail Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 July, 2013
26. In likewise manner, happens to be status of the
victim. Times without number the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed
that the age of the victim could not be ascertained by way of medical
evidence rather it should be in accordance with Rule 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act wherein age of the delinquent is being ascertained
as held in Jernail Singh v. Haryana 2013 Cr.L.J. 3976 as under para-
20 which is as follows:-
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar Alias Sunny on 15 December, 2016
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar as
reported in 2017 Cr.L.J. 1443, the Hon'ble Apex Court has occasion
to deal with the delay in institution of rape case as well as status of the
victim inconsonance with the recognition of the evidence of the
victim. For better appreciation the same is quoted hereinbelow:-
Gian Chand & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2013
In Gian Chand & others v. State of Haryana reported
in 2013(4) PLJR 7 (SC) it has been held:-