Judgments - Rape
RANJEET NAIK VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Munnalal and Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - (1) Prosecutrix in a rape case – conviction can be based only on the basis of solitary evidence of prosecutrix but such witness should be of “sterling quality”. Citation relied upon - Krishna Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130] & Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21]. (2) While deciding rape case, the Court must also evaluate the impact of such insinuation on a person Full Judgment
Abhishek Chouhan s/o Kailash Chouhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - 1. It is held that, in majority of the cases of rape, the defence of the accused is that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and in most of the cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt also, but in the considered opinion of this Court, barring some exceptions, India are a conservative society, it has not yet reached such level (advance or lower) of civilization where unmarried girls, regardless of their religion, indulge in carnal Full Judgment
In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Manoj
Arjun Kumar @ Prince Vs. The State Of Bihar
PHAGUNI MAHTO @ PANKAJ KUMAR VERSUS STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Karan Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - 1 (i) Whether the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant means actual sentence of 14 years or 20 years ? Ans: Section 53 of the IPC provides for sentence of imprisonment of life and the definition of life as contained in Section 45 makes it clear that life means the life of human being till he breath his last. A sentence for imprisonment of life will run for the entire life of the convict unless the Full Judgment
Sunil Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
ABC Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
Prosecutrix (Minor) through her Natural Guardian Vs. State of M.P. and others
Raju @ Vijay s/o Daulji Ahirwar V/s State of M.P & one another
Law laid down - The procedure prescribed under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is to be adopted by the committee or board but where the accused claiming himself to be "Child in conflict with law" is produced before the Magistrate or Sessions Court empowered under Cr.P.C.to conduct trail and an objection is raised about juvenility at the time of commission of offence, the procedure prescribed under section 9 (2) of the JJ Act, Full Judgment
Vishal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC is irrational. Marriageable age in India is 18 years, giving consent for sexual intercourse is also 18 years. Exception is inconsistent with the provisions of POCSO Act. Definition of “Child” as per Section 2(1)(d) is below 18 years. The preamble also provides that “sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children are heinous crimes and need to be effectively addressed” This is directly in conflict with Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC. Section Full Judgment