The mere fact that the prosecutrix turned hostile is not relevant to efface the evidence with regard to sexual assault

[Case Brief] Hemudan Nanba Gadhvi v/s State of Gujarat – Supreme Court of India

Case¬† name Hemudan Nanba Gadhvi v/s State of Gujarat Case number Criminal Appeal No 913 of 2016 Court Supreme Court of India Bench Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Navin Sinha, Justice KM Joseph Author of the judgment Justice Navin Sinha…

Continue Reading

Bankey v State of Allahabad AIR 1960 ALL 131

CaseBankey v State of Allahabad, AIR 1960 All 131
CourtBefore Allahabad High Court
BenchJustice V.D. Bhargava
Decided on18 May, 1960
AbstractIn the present case, a complaint was filed against the accused who had infringed a women's modesty when there were no male members at the house. However, the accused was not successful in satisfying his immoral motives because of the presence of people in the neighborhood. There is a difference between sexual assault and rape. This difference has been explained thus, "When a person makes entry into an apartment occupied by a lady the first and foremost rational inference that can be drawn in the circumstances must be that it was with the intention of committing some offence in relation to that lady. If it is only making gestures and uttering words requesting her to agree to commit some sexual offence, or remove the petticoat or dhoti, then, in that event, it would amount only to an offence under Section 509, I. P. C., but if he proceeds further and thereafter tries forcibly to commit rape and does not stop only at intruding into the apartment and making gestures, those offences will be under Section 376 read with Section 511, I. P. C. and the last step would be when he actually Succeeds in committing rape."
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsSexual Intercourse, Sexual Assault, Rape, Indian Penal Code, Criminology.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Hunny v State of New Delhi (2017)

CaseHunny v State of Delhi, 2017
CourtIn the High Court of Delhi
BenchHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Decided On June 06, 2017
Advocate for the appellantMr.Tarun Khanna for Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
Advocate for the respondentMs.Meenakshi Dahiya, Additional Public Prosecutor.
AbstractIn the present case delivered by the High Court of Delhi, the judge has relied upon the evidence given by the victim, 5 years old, with the support of the baby doll. The High Court upheld the conviction given by the trial court. The victim was kidnapped and was sexually assaulted and slapped by the appellant. Her internal medical examination was not allowed by the victim's mother in lieu of her dignity. But the evidence collected from the brother of the victim and independent witness resulted in conviction of the appellant for the offences under Indian Penal Code and POSCO Act.
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsPOSCO, Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Sexual Assault, Kidnapping, Indian Evidence Act.

(more…)

Continue Reading
Close Menu