Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Md.Ali @ Guddu vs State Of U.P on 10 March, 2015
The only explanation given by her is that she was
threatened by the accused persons. It is not in her
testimony that she was confined to one place. In fact, it
has been borne out from the material on record that she
had travelled from place to place and she was ravished
number of times. Under these circumstances, the medical
evidence gains significance, for the examining doctor has
categorically deposed that there are no injuries on the
private parts. The delay in FIR, the non- examination of
the witnesses, the testimony of the prosecutrix, the
associated circumstances and the medical evidence, leave
a mark of doubt to treat the testimony of the prosecutrix
as so natural and truthful to inspire confidence. It can be
stated with certitude that the evidence of the prosecutrix
is not of such quality which can be placed reliance upon.
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sajan Kapar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 January, 2015
15. Appellant Dilip Kumar Mandal has been convicted under
Section 366A of the IPC and appellant Ramdeo Mandal has been
convicted under Section 366A read with Section 120B of the IPC and
from perusal of judgment cited by learned Amicus Curiae in the case
of Sajjan Kapar vs. State of Bihar (supra), it appears that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has dealt with application of Section 366A IPC and held
in para - 3 as follows:-
1