Sham Singh Vs The State of Haryana-21/08/2018

Rape Case- Looking to the above evidence, it is amply clear that the case of the prosecution, as made out, appears to be artificial and concocted. It may not be probable to commit rape in one’s own house in front of the sister, children, wife and mother. If in actuality the incident had taken place, the medical report would have gone against the accused.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2018

Sham Singh

Versus

The State of Haryana

JUDGMENT

Continue Reading

SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR-14/2/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, now let us examine the evidence of the prosecutrix and consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the deposition of the prosecutrix, more particularly when neither the medical report/evidence supports nor other witnesses support and it has come on record that there was an enmity between both the parties.

Acts:-Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3780/2018)

SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR 

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR 

Continue Reading

Quick consideration of mercy petition and swift rejection the same cannot be ground for judicial review: SC on rejecting a petition by Nirbhya Rape-Murder Accused

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) D NO.3334 OF 2020

MUKESH KUMAR …Petitioner

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …Respondents

ORDER

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar – a death-row convict. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India and seeking commutation of his death sentence inter alia on the following grounds:-

Continue Reading

Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019

RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.

NONREPORTABLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand

[Criminal Appeal No. 2127 of 2009]

ACTS: Section 354 and Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 27.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal no.144 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order dated 08.05.1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in S.T. No. 36 of 1991 convicting the accused for offences under Section 354 and Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for commission of offence under Section 354 IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 200/for commission of offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC.

2. The brief facts according to the prosecution are that the complainant victim is the aunt of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant had earlier also committed indecent behavior with the complainant victim, which is the subject matter of another criminal proceeding. On 12.01.1991, the accused-appellant after seeing the complainant victim alone took advantage of the same and attempted to molest her. On the same date at around 10:00 P.M while the complainant victim along with her daughters was sleeping in her house, the accused-appellant entered into the house of the victim in a drunken state. While the complainant victim was getting up from her bed, the accused-appellant pounced upon her making her fall into the bed.

The accused-appellant thereafter lifted her petticoat, sat upon her and attempted to commit rape. Upon hearing the noise, the daughter of the complainant victim (P.W.2) got up and beseeched the accused-appellant to let go of her mother. Upon hearing the commotion, certain other villagers interfered, accused-appellant ran away after threatening the complainant victim. Thereafter, the complainant victim narrated the entire incident to her husband, pursuant to which they approached the Court of the CJM to file the complaint on 16.01.1991.

3. The trial court, vide order dated 08.05.1992, convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 354, pursuant to which he was directed to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2006. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the accused-appellant approached this Court by way of present appeal.

4. The counsel on behalf of the accused appellant submitted that accused appellant has been framed by the complainant victim pursuant to certain existing enmity. Further, it was pleaded that the FIR was registered with a delay of 3 days and the prosecution has failed to explain the same. Lastly, the evidence of the witnesses does not suggest any liability for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of IPC.

5. On the contrary, the counsel for the State has supported the concurrent judgments of conviction passed against the accused-appellant.

6. Heard counsel appearing for both parties. In the present case, the statement rendered by the complainant victim (P.W.1) is corroborated by the daughter of the complainant victim (P.W. 2) who is an eyewitness to the said incident, husband of the complainant victim (P.W.3) and independent witness Sohan Lal (P.W.4). The courts below have observed that although these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, they have remained persistent in their statements and there was no material contradiction so as to raise any doubt regarding their credibility.

7. The statement of the complainant victim reveals that the accused appellant had attempted to molest her on numerous occasions. In order to attract culpability under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused applied criminal force on the victim with the intention of outraging her modesty. In the case at hand, prior to the commission of the offence, the accused appellant had attempted to molest the complainant victim on the same day itself. Later that night, the accused appellant forcibly entered the house of the complainant victim in a drunken state, being aware about the absence of her husband. Thereafter, the accused appellant, exerting criminal force, pounced upon the complainant victim and forcibly lifted her petticoat. Although, the complainant victim pleaded the accused to stop considering the fact that she was his aunt; he responded stating, it does not matter to him. The aforesaid action of the accused appellant is sufficient to prove his culpability.

8. The counsel of the accused appellant has pleaded that the actions of the accused appellant do not constitute the offence under Section 511 read with Section 376, as the accused appellant had not committed any overt act such as; any attempt to undress himself in order to commit the alleged act. This Court in the case of Aman Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379 held that

“11. In order to find an accused guilty of an attempt with intent to commit a rape, court has to be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person, but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part…”

9. The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept. The evidence of the daughter (P.W.2) also reveals that she pleaded with the accused appellant to spare her mother. In the meantime, hearing such commotion, other villagers intervened and threatened the accused of dire consequences pursuant to which the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.

Here, the evidence of independent witness Sohan Lal (P.W.4) assumes significance in corroborating the events on the date of occurrence, wherein he has averred that at around 10:00 p.m, he heard noise coming from the house of complainant victim, pursuant to which he saw the accused appellant’s wife holding his neck coming out from the house of the complainant victim. P.W.4 had also overheard the complainant victim complaining that the accused appellant was quarreling with her.

10. Herein, although the complainant victim and her daughter were pleading with the accused to let the complainant victim go, the accused appellant did not show any reluctance that he was going to stop from committing the aforesaid offence. Therefore, had there been no intervention, the accused appellant would have succeeded in executing his criminal design. The conduct of the accused in the present case is indicative of his definite intention to commit the said offence.

11. The counsel on behalf of the accused appellant placed reliance upon the case of Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560 to claim the benefit of acquittal for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of IPC. But, on careful perusal of the aforesaid decision in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the present case, both the cases are distinguishable as in the case cited above, it is clearly noted that the accused failed at the stage of preparation of commission of the offence itself. Whereas, in the present case before us the distinguishing fact is the action of the accused appellant in forcibly entering the house of the complainant victim in a drunken state and using criminal force to lift her petticoat despite her repeated resistance.

12. Further, the plea of the accused appellant regarding the delay in registering the FIR has been duly considered by both the courts below. It has been duly noted that the husband of the complainant victim (P.W.3) was staying in Nandprayag while the incident occurred in the remote village of Salna. Subsequent to the incident, the complainant victim first travelled to meet her husband (P.W.3). After narrating the said incident to him, she further travelled to register a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, which is again far off from the place of occurrence. Considering the aforesaid factual scenario, the delay in registering the FIR does not affect the case of the prosecution adversely.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances, the guilt of the accused appellant has been established beyond doubt. In our opinion, therefore, the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

J. (N.V. RAMANA

J. (AJAY RASTOGI)

New Delhi;

November 20, 2019


 

The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Deepak Khajuria and others. [Kathu Rape Case]

District and Sessions Court, Pathankot

Case Details

Case Type: SC – SESSIONS CASES
Filing Number: 815/2018Filing Date: 30-05-2018
Registration Number: 34/2018Registration Date: 30-05-2018
CNR Number: PBPO01-001505-2018

 

Case Status

First Hearing Date: 30th May 2018
Decision Date: 10th June 2019
Case Status: CASE DISPOSED
Nature of Disposal: Contested–CONVICTED
Court Number and Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge

Petitioner and Advocate

1) State
Advocate- Public Prosecutor

Respondent and Advocate

1) Deepak Khajuria @ Deepu

2) Surinder Kumar

3) Parvesh Kumar @ Mannu

4) Vishal Jangotra @ Shamma

5) Sanji Ram

6) Tilak Raj

7) Anand Dutta

Acts

Under Act(s) Under Section(s)
Ranbir Penal Code 363,343,376,302,201,120

History of Case Hearing

Registration Number Judge Business On Date Hearing Date Purpose of hearing
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-05-2018 31-05-2018 Appereance
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 31-05-2018 01-06-2018 Appereance
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-06-2018 02-06-2018 Appereance
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-06-2018 04-06-2018 Charge
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-06-2018 05-06-2018 Charge
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-06-2018 06-06-2018 Charge
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-06-2018 07-06-2018 Charge
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-06-2018 08-06-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 08-06-2018 11-06-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-06-2018 12-06-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-06-2018 13-06-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-06-2018 14-06-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-06-2018 15-06-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-06-2018 02-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-07-2018 03-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 03-07-2018 04-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-07-2018 05-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-07-2018 06-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-07-2018 07-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-07-2018 09-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 09-07-2018 10-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-07-2018 11-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-07-2018 12-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-07-2018 13-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-07-2018 16-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-07-2018 17-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-07-2018 18-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-07-2018 19-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 19-07-2018 20-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-07-2018 21-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-07-2018 23-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 23-07-2018 24-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 24-07-2018 25-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 25-07-2018 26-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 26-07-2018 27-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 27-07-2018 30-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-07-2018 31-07-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 31-07-2018 01-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-08-2018 02-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-08-2018 03-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 03-08-2018 04-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-08-2018 06-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-08-2018 07-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-08-2018 08-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 08-08-2018 09-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 09-08-2018 10-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-08-2018 13-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-08-2018 14-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-08-2018 16-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-08-2018 17-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-08-2018 20-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-08-2018 21-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-08-2018 23-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 23-08-2018 24-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 24-08-2018 27-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 27-08-2018 28-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 28-08-2018 29-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-08-2018 31-08-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 31-08-2018 01-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-09-2018 04-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-09-2018 05-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-09-2018 06-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-09-2018 07-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-09-2018 10-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-09-2018 11-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-09-2018 12-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-09-2018 13-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-09-2018 14-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-09-2018 15-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-09-2018 17-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-09-2018 18-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-09-2018 20-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-09-2018 21-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-09-2018 24-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 24-09-2018 25-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 25-09-2018 26-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 26-09-2018 27-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 27-09-2018 28-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 28-09-2018 29-09-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-09-2018 01-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-10-2018 03-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 03-10-2018 04-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-10-2018 05-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-10-2018 06-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-10-2018 09-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 09-10-2018 10-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-10-2018 11-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-10-2018 12-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-10-2018 13-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-10-2018 15-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-10-2018 16-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-10-2018 17-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-10-2018 18-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-10-2018 20-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-10-2018 22-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 22-10-2018 23-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 23-10-2018 25-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 25-10-2018 26-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 26-10-2018 29-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-10-2018 30-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-10-2018 31-10-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 31-10-2018 01-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-11-2018 02-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-11-2018 03-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 03-11-2018 05-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-11-2018 06-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-11-2018 12-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-11-2018 13-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-11-2018 14-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-11-2018 15-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-11-2018 16-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-11-2018 17-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-11-2018 19-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 19-11-2018 20-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-11-2018 21-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-11-2018 22-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 22-11-2018 26-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 26-11-2018 27-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 27-11-2018 28-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 28-11-2018 29-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-11-2018 30-11-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-11-2018 01-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-12-2018 08-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 08-12-2018 10-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-12-2018 11-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-12-2018 13-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-12-2018 14-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-12-2018 15-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-12-2018 17-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-12-2018 18-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-12-2018 19-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 19-12-2018 20-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-12-2018 21-12-2018 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-12-2018 02-01-2019 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-01-2019 03-01-2019 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 03-01-2019 04-01-2019 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-01-2019 05-01-2019 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-01-2019 07-01-2019 Procecution Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-01-2019 08-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 08-01-2019 09-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 09-01-2019 10-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-01-2019 11-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-01-2019 14-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-01-2019 15-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-01-2019 16-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-01-2019 17-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-01-2019 18-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-01-2019 19-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 19-01-2019 21-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-01-2019 22-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 22-01-2019 23-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 23-01-2019 24-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 24-01-2019 25-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 25-01-2019 28-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 28-01-2019 29-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-01-2019 30-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-01-2019 31-01-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 31-01-2019 01-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-02-2019 02-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-02-2019 04-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-02-2019 05-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-02-2019 06-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-02-2019 07-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-02-2019 08-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 08-02-2019 12-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-02-2019 13-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-02-2019 14-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-02-2019 15-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-02-2019 16-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-02-2019 18-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-02-2019 20-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-02-2019 21-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-02-2019 22-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 22-02-2019 25-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 25-02-2019 26-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 26-02-2019 27-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 27-02-2019 28-02-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 28-02-2019 01-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-03-2019 02-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-03-2019 05-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-03-2019 06-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-03-2019 07-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-03-2019 11-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-03-2019 12-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-03-2019 13-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-03-2019 14-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-03-2019 15-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-03-2019 16-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-03-2019 18-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-03-2019 19-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 19-03-2019 20-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-03-2019 26-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 26-03-2019 27-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 27-03-2019 28-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 28-03-2019 29-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-03-2019 30-03-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-03-2019 01-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-04-2019 02-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-04-2019 04-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-04-2019 05-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 05-04-2019 06-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-04-2019 08-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 08-04-2019 09-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 09-04-2019 10-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-04-2019 11-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 11-04-2019 12-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 12-04-2019 18-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-04-2019 19-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 19-04-2019 20-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-04-2019 23-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 23-04-2019 24-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 24-04-2019 25-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 25-04-2019 26-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 26-04-2019 29-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-04-2019 30-04-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-04-2019 01-05-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-05-2019 02-05-2019 313 Cr.PC
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 02-05-2019 03-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 03-05-2019 04-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-05-2019 06-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-05-2019 07-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 07-05-2019 08-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 08-05-2019 09-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 09-05-2019 10-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-05-2019 13-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 13-05-2019 14-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 14-05-2019 15-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 15-05-2019 16-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 16-05-2019 17-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 17-05-2019 18-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 18-05-2019 20-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 20-05-2019 21-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 21-05-2019 22-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 22-05-2019 23-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 23-05-2019 24-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 24-05-2019 27-05-2019 Defence Evidence
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 27-05-2019 28-05-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 28-05-2019 29-05-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 29-05-2019 30-05-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 30-05-2019 31-05-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 31-05-2019 01-06-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 01-06-2019 03-06-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 03-06-2019 04-06-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 04-06-2019 06-06-2019 Arguments
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 06-06-2019 10-06-2019 Final Order
34/2018 District and Sessions Judge 10-06-2019 Disposed

Orders

  Order Number   Order Date   Order Details
  1   30-05-2018   Copy of order
  2   31-05-2018   Copy of order
  3   01-06-2018   Copy of order
  4   02-06-2018   Copy of order
  5   04-06-2018   Copy of order
  6   05-06-2018   Copy of order

The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Deepak Khajuria and others.

Rapist Bishop Mulakkal got bail from Kerala High Court

15.10.2018-Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan of the Kerala High Court on Monday granted bail [Bail Appl./6927/2018-BISHOP DR. FRANCO MULAKKAL Versus STATE OF KERALA] to Roman Catholic Bishop Franco Mulakkal, arrested over allegations of repeatedly raping and sexually assaulting a nun. While granting Bail condition imposed to the accused Bishop to surrender his passport and not to enter Kerala state except for appearing before the probe officer once in two weeks on Saturdays. This condition would be applicable till a charge sheet is filed in the case.  Franco Mulakkal arrayed as an accused in Crime No.746 of 2018 of the Kuruvilangadu Police Station registered under Sections 342, 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n), 376(C)(a), 377, 506(i) of the IPC. The accused was arrested in connection with the above crime on 21.9.2018 and he remains in custody. He seeks regular bail through this application filed under section 439 of the CrPC. The registration of the above Crime is at the instance of a nun, who was formerly the Mother Superior of St. Francis Convent, Kuruvilangadu. She is a member of the Missionaries of Jesus Congregation under the Latin Catholic Diocese of Jalandhar. The applicant, being the Bishop, oversees the functioning of the St.Francis Convent, Kuruvilangadu.

Briefly, the allegation is that on 5.5.2014, the applicant herein, after attending a function at Chalakkudy, stayed in the St.Francis Convent for the night. The survivor was given some errands and late in the night she was invited to his room. It is alleged that when she entered the room, the applicant closed the door and after forcefully confining her, subjected her to sexual assault and rape. In her complaint, the nun states that she was intimidated by the dominant position of the applicant and this advantage was misused by him to commit repeated acts of sexual abuse. She specifically states that, since then, she was sexually abused and raped on 12 separate instances by the applicant at the St.Francis Convent during a span of about 2 years. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate wherein she has reiterated the allegations against the applicant in considerable detail.

Supreme court Direction to the police on receipt of Rape Case

25-04-2014 : There is a pressing need to introduce drastic amendments into the Code of Criminal Procedure in the nature of fast tract procedure for Fast Track Courts when we considered just and appropriate to issue notice and called upon the Union of India to file its response as to why it should not take initiative and sincere steps for introducing necessary amendment into the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 involving trial for the charge of ‘Rape’ by directing that all the witnesses who are examined in relation to the offence and incident of rape cases should be straightway produced preferably before the Lady Judicial Magistrate for recording their statement to be kept in sealed cover and thereafter the same be treated as evidence at the stage of trial by producing the same in record in accordance with law which may be put to test by subjecting it to cross-examination.

Continue Reading

If a married woman raped, internal or external injuries may not be found

Admittedly the prosecutrix was already a married lady and, therefore, it was not necessary that some external or internal injuries should have been found on her person.

No doubt, it is true that doctor could not give any definite opinion with regard to commission of offence, but, it was not the case of the appellants that they had not committed the rape but they had taken a plea of consensual SEX with the prosecutrix which has not been believed by the two courts below.Continue Reading

Corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law in Rape trial

A conviction can be founded on the testimony of prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. It is further held that her evidence is more reliable than that of an injured witness.

AIR 2005 SC 3570 : (2005) 3 Suppl. SCR 703 : (2005) 8 SCC 122 : JT 2005 (12) SC 150 : (2005) 7 SCALE 663 : (2005) CriLJ SC 4375Continue Reading

A false allegation of rape can cause distress, humiliation and damage to the accused

It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

Held: the offence of rape does not stand proved.

Evidence: It was also argued that the material witness, namely, milkman Mahavir, who informed the Aunt about the victim lying unconscious in front of the house of one Pappu, was not examined, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Even Pappu before whose house the victim was allegedly lying unconscious was also not examined.

Continue Reading