Judgments - Rape
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
MR. VIVEK KUMAR YADAV VERSUS STATE & ANR
Patan Jamal Vali Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
AMEET KHANDELWAL VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Pramod Yadav Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Deepak Mahto Versus The State Of Bihar
YOGESH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA
K.Prakash & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka
Md. Javed @ Md. Javed Mian Vsersus The State Of Bihar
Sekh Magan @ Md. S. K. Magan Versus The State Of Bihar
Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
VIKAS MITTAL VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Ratanlal Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - [1] Presumption under Section 114- A of Evidence Act is not available in case of gang rape provided under Section 376-D of IPC after the amendment incorporated in Section 376(2) of IPC and in Section 114-A of Evidence Act by the Act 13 of 2013 dated 03.02.2013 for offences committed after 03.02.2013. [2] Oversight of the legislature cannot be amended or corrected by the Courts. Full Judgment