The sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration, and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape. Definition of “rape” as contained in Section 375, IPC refers to “SEXual intercourse” and the Explanation appended to the Section provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the SEXual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Intercourse means SEXual connection. In the instant case that connection has been clearly established. Courts below were perfectly justified in their view.
AIR 2007 SCW 4367 : JT 2007 (6) SC 282 : (2007) 6 SCALE 134 : (2007) 6 SCC 517 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Moran M. Baselios marthoma Mathews II and OTHERS […]
KEYWORDS:- THIKA TENANCY DATE:-14-08-2007 AIR 2007 SC 2883 : (2007) 8 SCR 1013 : (2007) 12 SCC 175 : JT 2007 (10) SC 134 : (2007) 10 SCALE 20 (SUPREME COURT OF […]
KEYWORDS: Valuation-Assessment of property tax The person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. AIR 2007 […]
KEYWORDS:- Basic structures doctrine- Ninth schedule- Amending Constitution- DATE:- 11-01-2007 Whether on and after 24th April, 1973 when basic structures doctrine was propounded, it is permissible for the Parliament under Article 31B to […]
Keywords:-Adverse possession Scope of Section 100 CPC, more particularly in Gurudev Kaur and Others vs. Kaki and Others [(2007) 1 SCC 546] where it was held that even before the 1976 amendment […]
If property belongs to Government for acquisition of easementary right by prescription user of “30 years” is required.
It is settled principle of law that what has not been conferred in the plaint cannot be proved. Only right of easement by way of prescription has been pleaded, alleging that Plaintiff was using the land of Plot No. 164 for 20 years. It is pertinent to mention here that at the end of Section 15 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, which pertains to acquisition by prescription, it is specifically mentioned that if the property, over which a right is claimed, belongs to the Government, the word ’20 years’ shall be read as ’30 years’. As such, in respect of a Government land mere user for 20 years does not confer any easementary right by way of prescription to the Plaintiff, as he has nowhere pleaded that he used the land for 30 years or more.
School violence has been a persistent problem in the United States. For example, on January 29, 1979, a 16-year-old opened fire on Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, CA. She killed two adults […]
It is a settled principle of law that in order to prove that the possession of any person in any immovable property is legal, it is necessary for such person to prove prima facie that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner. Such is not the case here.
Whether refusal to have sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason itself amounts to mental cruelty? SC Yes
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh