Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The evidence of the victim girl and the medical examination report prima facie do not indicate that there was any penetration or rape committed by the petitioner on the victim girl nor that he attempted to penetrate.”
“In the present case, aggrieved party that is the husband of the complainant has not made complaint of adultery before the Court; therefore, ingredients of Section 497 of the IPC have not been made out against the convict.”
“The definition of ‘rape’ excludes acts between a man and his wife, not below the age of fifteen years, performed during the subsistence of a valid marriage.”
Respondent 3 was fully aware of the bond of matrimony existing between her and the petitioner after the civil registration of their marriage and consciously decided to engage in consensual sexual interactions. So, it cannot be said that her consent for sexual relationship is vitiated by a promise to marry based on religious customs.
Despite having multiple opportunities to report the alleged acts, complainant remained silent. Her complaint came only after the pregnancy was discovered. The Court stated that these facts lend credence to the possibility that the FIR was a reaction to social pressure and the nature of the relationship was re-cast retrospectively to explain an unwanted pregnancy.
“Any compromise or settlement with respect to the offence of rape, against the honour of a woman, which shakes the very core of her life and tantamounts to a serious blow to her supreme honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity, is not acceptable to this Court.”
“It cannot be said that an 86 years-old ailing person, who is desperate to get himself treated, can confine his treatment to a particular therapy or a particular system of medicines.”
Top criminal cases on quashing of proceedings, arrest, bail, acquittal, and more.
As March comes to a close, it’s time to reflect on the significant judgments, orders, and developments from the Supreme Court. This roundup provides an overview of the top stories, important cases, and key updates that made headlines this month. It also highlights some never-before-reported judgments, notable cases from SCC Weekly, a “Know Thy Judge” feature, as well as appointments and transfers by the Supreme Court.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
““abetment is separate and distinct offence than rape” and if the act abetted is committed in consequences of the abetment, then the person i.e. man or woman abeting such crime is liable to be punished under Section 109 of IPC.”
The accused, despite being fully aware of the age difference, actively pursued the relationship, gave assurances of marriage, and induced the victim to make financial and emotional commitments.
The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter after an NGO ‘We the Women of India’ approached the Court against the impugned decision.
Supreme Court said that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement, and this was a suitable case for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. As a result, the parties were unnecessarily compelled to approach this Court.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi formerly serving as Judge of Calcutta High Court was appointed to the Supreme Court on 10-3-2025 and is in line to become the CJI in 2031.
“Statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC cannot be given preference over the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.”
“The provisions of Section 42A of POCSO Act, cannot be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of POCSO Act.”
“The victim has left her parents’ house without informing the parents and stayed with the accused for 3 days and 3 nights, she also confessed that she was in love with the accused and travelled along with him to different places and had a consensual encounter.”
“Both the parties were of the age to have a reasonable understanding of the import of their conduct, and despite that, had engaged in the said act over a substantial period of time.”
A perusal of Charge-sheet shows that the Applicant and the Complainant were in a relationship for more than one year. However, as per the Complainant eventually the attitude of Petitioner/Complainant changed, and he started ill-treating and blackmailing her.