Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Kalyan Singh & Ors
Champa Lal Dhakar Versus Naval Singh Rajput & Ors
Babulal s/o Surajmal Patidar & 4 others Versus State of M.P.
Lal Singh -Versus- The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - In case of rape of an adult married woman where the report is lodged on the next day of the incident, the prosecution has to explain where did the prosecutrix stay in the night. In absence of such an explanation, medical and chemical examination reports lose their significance. Full Judgment
Jan Mohamad VERSUS State of Haryana
State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Mukesh Kewat and another
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Versus State of Maharashtra
NIPUN SAXENA & ANR Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS WASIF HAIDER ETC
Mayank Sharma & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Viran Gyanlal Rajput Versus The State of Maharashtra
State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Bhagwan s/o Ballu Nahal
Mohd. Akhtar @ Kari & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr
Kanubhai Bhagvanbhai Nayak VERSUS State of Gujarat
Smt. Pooja Parihar Vs. State of M.P. and others
Boodhe @ Roop Singh Vs. The State of M.P.
Law laid down - The Evidence Act nowhere says that evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by any material particulars. The requirement of material for corroboration depends on the facts and circumstances of each case applying the rule of prudence. But if the prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on Full Judgment