The Trial Court was of the view that the statement of the prosecutrix was credible. It is to be noted that two persons faced trial for the aforesaid offences i. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It may be true that in the entry of the school register is not conclusive but it has evidentiary value. It is, really speaking, a matter of intention.
Under the circumstances, the more appropriate course of action would be to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter for reconsideration on merits after taking into account the entire evidence on record, including the statement and testimony of H. No internal or external injury was found on her body and she was used to sexual intercourse. Bhainswal Kalan kidnapped Kumari H. An Indian woman traditionally will not concoct an untruthful story and bring charges of rape for the purpose of blackmail, hatred, spite or revenge. When the bus bearing registration No. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The Trial Court then considered the issue of the improbability of H.
The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. In the meanwhile, Rampal — brother of the prosecutrix — made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi on September 28, 1989 that A-1, A-2 and A-3 have kidnapped her sister prosecutrix on September 19, 1989. This by itself shows that the report had been lodged after consultation and after due deliberation and the prosecution can be safely looked with doubt. An Indian woman traditionally will not concoct an untruthful story and bring charges of rape for the purpose of blackmail, hatred, spite or revenge.
As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs. On flimsy grounds, the accused convicted of a serious crime of kidnapping and rape has been acquitted. According to the complainant, H. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration b to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. She informed the same to her parents through one Kumari. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. Since the allegation of rape is of the year 1989- 1990, we request the High Court to accord high priority to the disposal of the case.
The facts in issue are as under: On 17. As such, it was held that Satish Prakash was guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the I. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. . Unless the approach of lower Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by manifest illegality or conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is perverse, no interference with the order of acquittal is permissible. The Trial Judge also considered some letters said to have been written by H.
It is an offence when it is accompanied by certain intent to commit another offence. विवरण जो कोई किसी स्त्री का उसकी इच्छा के विरुद्ध किसी व्यक्ति से विवाह करने के लिए उस स्त्री को विवश करने के आशय से या वह विवश की जाएगी यह सम्भाव्य जानते हुए अथवा अवैध संभोग करने के लिए उस स्त्री को विवश करना या बहकाना या वह स्त्री अवैध संभोग के लिए विवश या बहक जाएगी यह संभाव्य जानते हुए व्यपहरण या अपहरण करेगा, तो उसे किसी एक अवधि के लिए कारावास की सजा जिसे दस वर्ष तक बढ़ाया जा सकता है, और साथ ही आर्थिक दंड से दंडित किया जाएगा; और जो कोई इस संहिता या प्राधिकरण के दुरुपयोग या मजबूर कर किसी भी विधि में परिभाषित आपराधिक धमकियों के माध्यम से किसी स्त्री को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति से अवैध संभोग करने के लिए विवश करने या बहकाने के आशय से या वह स्त्री विवश या बहक जाएगी यह संभाव्य जानते हुए उस स्त्री को किसी स्थान से जाने के लिए उत्प्रेरित करेगा, उसे भी उपरोक्त प्रकार से दण्डित किया जाएगा। लागू अपराध किसी स्त्री को विवाह के लिए विवश करने, अपवित्र करने के लिए व्यपहृत करना, अपहृत करना या उत्प्रेरित करना आदि। सजा - दस वर्ष कारावास + आर्थिक दंड। यह एक गैर-जमानती, संज्ञेय अपराध है और सत्र न्यायालय द्वारा विचारणीय है। यह अपराध समझौता करने योग्य नहीं है। LawRato. The adjournments thus become routine; the casualty is justice. Rape is a heinous crime and once it is established against a person charged of the offence, justice must be done to the victim of crime by awarding suitable punishment to the crime doer. Efforts were made to trace her out, including at the residence of relatives and at her parental home in but without success. The circumstances even do not remotely suggest that the prosecutrix would put her reputation and chastity at stake for the reason stated by A-1 in the statement under Section 313 Cr. A-1 was arrested on December 2, 1989.
Proceedings in the High Court: 24. For the remaining offences, they were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, but all sentences were to run concurrently and, therefore, we are not going into the details of the punishment awarded. The law on the issue whether a conviction can be based entirely on the statement of a rape victim has been settled by this Court in several decisions. The courts must be sensitive and responsive to the plight of the female victim of sexual assault. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. In our view, the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and has rightly been acted upon by the trial court.
Abetment: If a married woman consents to her own abduction and the consent is a free consent, the offence of abduction is not constituted and the woman would not be liable to abet her own abduction. अप्राप्तव्य लड़की का उपापन--- जो कोई अठारह वर्ष से कम आयु की अप्राप्तवय लड़की को अन्य व्यक्ति से अयुक्त संभोग करने के लिए विवश या विलुब्ध करने के आशय से या तदद्वारा विवश या विलुब्ध किया जाएगा यह सम्भाव्य जानते हुए ऐसी लड़की को किसी स्थान से जाने को या कोई कार्य करने को किसी भी साधन द्वारा उत्प्रेरित करेगा, वह कारावास से जिसकी अवधि दस वर्ष तक की हो सकेगी, दण्डित किया जाएगा और जुर्माने से भी दंडनीय होगा। Procuration of minor girl. Basti Ram was, however, found not guilty of the charge of kidnapping H. Fourthly, you both on same date and place committed criminal intimidation by threatening H. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. We must remember that a strong and efficient criminal justice system is a guarantee to the rule of law and vibrant civil society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society.
Obviously the sign of forcible intercourse would not persist for that long period. He told her that he would take her to the police station. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. Since the allegation of rape is of the year 1989- 1990, we request the High Court to accord high priority to the disposal of the case. What is kidnapping or inducing woman to compel marriage etc? The High Court vide its judgment dated March 11, 2003 reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted A-1. The prosecutrix at the relevant time was less than 18 years of age.