Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Jamnalal @ Chimman Dhimar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2001 cites

State Of Rajasthan vs N. K. Accused on 30 March, 2000

7. Now applying the test laid down in the above case to the facts of the present case it is clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case of want of consent of the prosecutrix 'based on evidence or probabilities of the case'. In the Supreme Court case the prosecutrix had immediately complained to her father that she had been subjected to rape and the evidence of the father was held to be a corroborative piece of evidence under Section 157 as former statement of the prosecutrix and also as her conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. That kind of assurance is not available in the present case. Here the prosecutrix who has after a long time complained of the onslaught on her by the accused did not disclose to her parents at the earliest available moment that she had been ravished by the accused. After this incident she indulges in sexual intercourse with the accused two-three times and lodges the FIR after her mother notices her five months pregnancy. These 'probability factors' distinguish this case from that of 'N.K.'. The cardinal principle remains undiluted that in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove all the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. That is discernible even from the judgment in 'N.K.', where it is ruled that a high degree of probability must be shown in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 246 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1