Judgments - Rape
GEETA SHARMA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Mahesh Pahade Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Though it is the responsibility of the State to bring the accused to law but in such process the actual sufferer of crime cannot be permitted to stay outside the law and to watch the proceedings from hindsight. It will be travesty of justice if the victims of such heinous crime are denied right to address their grievances before the courts of law. - Relied upon - Declaration of "Basic Principles of Justice of Victim for Crime and Abuse of Full Judgment
LALIT YADAV VS. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Lalji Chaudhary Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
MS. X . VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.
HARITA SUNIL PARAB VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
Khoob Singh - V/s - The State of M.P.
Sudhir Kumar Jain And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Kripal Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - Evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to evidence of the injured-complainant or witness. The testimony of the prosecutrix if found to be reliable, per se, may be sufficient to convict a culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. In prosecution of rape, law does not require corroboration. Absence of injury – external or internal, on the body of the prosecutrix would not render the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable. Full Judgment
Dinesh s/o Ram Kishore Vyas Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law Laid Down - Generally, the police is blamed for delay and indifferent manner but if the police officials have acted in the manner, which is expected of them, it cannot be said that the appellant has been falsely implicated. Full Judgment
ASHARFI Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Vinay Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (i) Conviction can be based upon the evidence of child witness and circumstantial evidence. (ii) DNA analysis report can be considered for holding the accused guilty. Full Judgment