Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The version of the informant/victim must be considered with utmost care before discerning it. In fact, if the version of the informant/victim inspires confidence and appears to be trustworthy, credible, unblemished and of sterling quality, no further corroboration is required.
“Conviction can be made only on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix without any independent corroboration. However, in such case, the testimony of the prosecutrix has to be of a sterling quality.”
The Trial Court observed that the victim was very young at the time of the incident and minor contradictions could not be a ground to disbelieve her testimony.”
Delhi High Court: In an appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Father (Appellant) under
A murderer destroys the physical frame of a victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female.
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Polluting the sanctity of the relationship of the teacher and students, a teacher committed rape and penetrative sexual
Supreme Court: In a case where a 65-year-old man committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 4-year-old neighbor, the bench of MR
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak, JJ., in a penetrative sexual assault case of a 14-year-old
Allahabad High Court: Anil Kumar Ojha, J., while addressing a matter of child sexual assault, expressed that, Putting penis into the mouth
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., while upholding the decision of Special Judge elaborated on the Sections of POCSO Act in
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and N.J. Jamadar, JJ., pens down the decision in the instant matter with
Bombay High Court: Vinay Joshi, J., altered the conviction for rape and penetrative sexual assault to an act of aggravated form of
Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ. partly allowed the present appeal wherein a
Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench of Bhaskar Raj Pradhan and Meenakshi Madan Rai, JJ., while upholding the impugned judgment of the
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. declined to quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner even while holding that Section 19(1) of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner had filed a petition before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. to
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment
Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai, Acting CJ, dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Vipin Sanghi and P.S. Teji, JJ, modified the conviction of the appellant to a