Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.44 seconds)Section 6 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2010
In this case, the case of the prosecution remained in the realm of
suspicion but did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt about the
alleged occurrence of sexual assault and it is a well settled principle of law
as settled in Sunil Kumar Vs. State, 2015 IIIAD (Delhi) 568 Crl.A 1213/2013 201
that,
'suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof'.
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 5 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Hari Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 December, 2009
In this case when the testimony of prosecutrix on whose the
prosecution is heavily relied and was a sterling witness, was not of the
quality as observed in case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Hari Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 and that it is the
duty of the court to see whether the evidence available before the court is
enough & cogent to prove the accused guilty as observed in case titled as
Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 130,
and that if the evidence of a sole witness is not of such unimpeachable
character, then court has to look into the corroborative evidence to support
the version of the prosecutrix regarding the allegations, as observed in
case titled as Sunil Kumar Vs. State, 2015 IIIAD (Delhi) 568 Crl.A 1213/2013 201.
Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011
In this case when the testimony of prosecutrix on whose the
prosecution is heavily relied and was a sterling witness, was not of the
quality as observed in case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Hari Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 and that it is the
duty of the court to see whether the evidence available before the court is
enough & cogent to prove the accused guilty as observed in case titled as
Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 130,
and that if the evidence of a sole witness is not of such unimpeachable
character, then court has to look into the corroborative evidence to support
the version of the prosecutrix regarding the allegations, as observed in
case titled as Sunil Kumar Vs. State, 2015 IIIAD (Delhi) 568 Crl.A 1213/2013 201.