Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Uday vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2003
12.
Leave apart the said D.N.A. report,
for considering as to whether taking allegations
of prosecutrix at its face value, whether the
present petitioner can be convicted for offence
punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal
Code or not?, it would be gainful to refer to
the observations of Apex Court in the case of
Uday Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR
2003 SC 1639;
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002
15. As already discussed hereinabove,
except the statement of prosecutrix, there is no
material on record to connect the petitioner
with the crime in question. Even if the said
statement is taken at its face value, in view of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:48:54 :::
14
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of Uday (cited supra), there is no possibility
of the petitioner being convicted under section
376 of the penal code. There is no material on
record to connect the present petitioner with
crime in question. The complaint which is a
typed complaint addressed to the Superintendent
of Police has been lodged after a period of
about 2 years from the period when the
relationship between petitioner and the
respondent no.2 is alleged to have commenced.
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1