Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the evidence did not disclose any specific overt act towards the commission of rape under Sections 376/511 IPC but established an assault with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to outrage the prosecutrix’s modesty, warranting alteration of the conviction to Section 354 IPC while upholding the conviction under Section 452 IPC.
If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it caused no annoyance to others, no offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is committed.
“The reasoning in the High Court’s judgment quite insensitively trivializes – indeed legitimizes – an entire range of unacceptable behaviour which undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions.”
Bombay High Court: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J., altered the conviction of the appellant who was accused of sexually assaulting a minor child
Attorney General for India K. K. Venugopal brought to the Court’s notice that the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has passed a judgment dated 19.01.2021 is likely to set “a dangerous precedent”.
UPDATE: This Judgment of the Bombay High Court has now been reversed by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India
Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ. partly allowed the present appeal wherein a