Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that as per the amended definition of rape, any sexual intercourse or act, by the husband with his wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, therefore, consent is immaterial.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
In the Split verdict on Criminalisation of Marital Rape Exception (MRE), the Division Bench of Delhi High Court pronounced a 393-Pages Judgment,
Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J., addressed that, if the victim’s underwear was not
Bombay High Court: C.V. Bhadang, J., while addressing the matter with regard to rape committed by a person claiming to have supernatural
Supreme Court: In a case where the accused had lured minor girls aged 8 and 9, took them inside the room, closed
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., observed that it is difficult to accept that continuing with an intimate relationship, which also involves engaging
Madras High Court: B. Pugalendhi, J., while partly allowing the appeal modified the offence to fall under Section 354 of the Penal
Kerala High Court: P.B. Suresh Kumar, J., addressed a matter in which a 59 year old man was accused of raping a minor
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and V.G. Bisht, JJ. refused to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against
Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ., while allowing an appeal, found error
Supreme Court: The bench of Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ reserved the judgment in the issue relating to criminalising of
Supreme Court: The bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak gupta, JJ has sought response from the Centre as to whether Parliament has