Judgments - Rape
MOHAMMED IMRAN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Rajesh Singh
Law laid down - Penetration is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse for offence of rape. Complete penetration is not essential. Full Judgment
HEMUDAN NANBHA GADHVI VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT
Gajanand S/o Chamru Lal @ Bhuria Lohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - An act of attempt to commit an offence is totally different from an act of preparation to commit an offence. There is no evidence that after laying down on the prosecutrix, the appellant in order to commit rape put his penis on the vagina of the prosecutrix or made any further attempt to penetrate in the vagina of the prosecutrix or touch any sensual organ with hand. Hence, the act which has been proved shows only preparation. Moreso, Full Judgment
DOLA @ DOLAGOBINDA PRADHAN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ODISHA
State of Uttar Pradesh VERSUS Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Sheikh Sadik
Law Laid Down: The presumption of correctness of date of birth in the matriculation certificate cannot be disputed on the basis of approximate age given by the doctor who medico-legally examined the victim - Supreme Court decision reported as (2013) 7 SCC 263 (Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana) - followed. The prosecutrix was staying in the house of the accused, who were providing her education, food, clothes and residence as her parents could not pay the fee of the school. Under Full Judgment
JITENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Sunil Adiwasi Vs. State of M.P.
Vinod alias Rahul Chouhtha - V/s - State of Madhya Pradesh P.S. Kotwali, Shahdol (M.P.)
Law Laid Down: The opinion of an expert is admissible in evidence u/S 293 of the CrPC and therefore, cannot be discarded on the basis of books on Medical Jurisprudence unless the passages which are sought to be discredited in the opinion of the expert are put to him - Judgments relied - AIR 1975 SC 905 (Phool Kumar vs. Delhi Administration) and AIR 1957 SC 589 (Bhagwan Das and another vs. State of Rajasthan). A DNA report must be accepted as scientifically Full Judgment
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