Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.51 seconds)State Of Rajasthan vs Babu Meena on 13 February, 2013
In case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Babu Meena, 2013 MPWN Note 66, there was ambiguity in the
timing of the incident as narrated by the prosecutrix and that was not
corroborated by the medical evidence so also it was not supported by
the so called eye witness, therefore, acquittal was confirmed.
Premchand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2017
In case
of Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P., 2006 Part-2 MPLJ 141,
explanation given by the prosecutrix that she was sleeping inside the
house with her three children keeping the door open was not accepted
and acquittal was recorded.
Ganga Singh vs State Of M.P on 4 July, 2013
Thus, it is evident
that learned trial Court has noted a fact that there was an abrasion on
the back of the prosecutrix and one bruise on the breast of the
prosecutrix besides presence of human sperms on petticoat and
vaginal swab and such evidence of the prosecution was supported by
PW-2, 3, 4 & 6, therefore, in the light of law laid down in case of
Ganga Singh (Supra) conviction of Suresh Dhakad has been
recorded.
Priya Patel vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 12 July, 2006
However, acquittal of Kasumal has been recorded in the
light of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Priya Patel Vs.
State of M.P., AIR 2006 SC 2639.
Arjun Singh vs State Of H.P on 6 February, 2009
Similarly reliance has been placed
on the judgment of Arjun Singh vs. State of H.P., AIR 2009 SC
1568.
Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002
[19] It is true as has been held in case of Sudhanshu Sekhar
Sahu Vs. State of Orissa, 2003 SCC Criminal 1484 that a sole
testimony of the victim of a sexual offence can be made basis for
conviction provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance.
State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003
[20] It is also true that an unmerited acquittal has not good for
the society if prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing
case for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the court
should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or
insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by
assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof where none reasonably
exists will encourage wolves in the society being in the prowl for easy
pray more so when the victims of crime are helpless females or minor
children, as has been held in State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh, AIR
2004 SC 1290.
Dastagir Sab & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2004
Injury on the body of the person of the victim is not
a sign qua non to prove the charge of rape, as has been held in case of
Dastgir Sab Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (3) SCC 106, but facts of
that case were that rape was committed at a spot where dried up cotton
plants were lying and accused made prosecutrix to lie on a land where
there were cotton plants and thus it was natural that she would not
sustain any visible injury, but in the present case since there is only
16
Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014
one witness and defence has given a suggestion that she was also
working as Asha Karyakarta, prosecutrix was working in a society
supplying mid-day meal under the wife of the convicted accused and
no injury marks were found on the body of the convicted accused and
other accused was not examined medically to show that she sustained
any injury when resistance was offered by the prosecutrix, then court
is duty bound to examine all the circumstances leading to the offence
starting from the motive of the accused.