Judgments - Rape
SAKSHI MEHTA VERSUS STATE & ANR
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Versus State of Kerala and Anr.
CHAITU LAL VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Miss XYZ Versus State of Gujarat & Anr
Vimlendra Singh alias Prince Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - 1. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989– As per unamended provision, the prosecution was required to establish that the prosecutrix who was subjected to any offence under the IPC was subjected on the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community. In view of evidence on record, the prosecution could not establish that offence allegedly committed was on the ground that prosecutrix belonged to reserved community. Hence, Full Judgment
Ravi S/o Ashok Ghumare VERSUS The State of Maharashtra
Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Manoharan Versus State by Inspector of Police Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore
STATE VERSUS KUNDAN KUMAR
DEEPTI VERMA VERSUS STATE AND ANR
KUMAR GHIMIREY VERSUS THE STATE OF SIKKIM
Ganga Prasad Mahto VERSUS State of Bihar & Anr.
Sachin Kumar Singhraha Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
ANKUSH MARUTI SHINDE AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
PARKASH CHAND VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Nand Kishore Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Lal Singh -Versus- The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - In case of rape of an adult married woman where the report is lodged on the next day of the incident, the prosecution has to explain where did the prosecutrix stay in the night. In absence of such an explanation, medical and chemical examination reports lose their significance. Full Judgment
