Kerala High Court scrutinized the definition of ‘sexual assault’ and expressed that the same has to be construed as sexual offence against a victim, including sexual harassment.
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.
The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on Unmarried persons’ right to safe abortion, Inclusion of ‘marital rape’ under Abortion laws, Journalist Sidhique Kappan’s bail; Constitution Bench’s opinion on Doctrine of Precedents; Reference of question relating to Pre-sentence hearing of death row convicts; Explainers on important law points; Collegium Recommendation; and more
“It would be an injustice to separate or to divide a well knitted family unit.”
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition filed seeking further cross examination of the child victim as the victim has
“The educational machinery of the State has fallen woefully short in imparting the required awareness to the young children about the heinous crimes and its consequence.”
Gauhati High Court: Arun Dev Choudhury, J., held that sexual offences against minor cannot be compromised by parents. An FIR was lodged
“Being women at least the sister-in-law and mother-in-law ought to have supported the prosecutrix, rather than beating her and not believing the prosecutrix.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The factual matrix of the case is such
Supreme Court: In a case where the Gujarat High Court had stayed the arrest a person accused for offences under sections 376(2)(F),
by Kerti Sharma and Shipra Tiwari*
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of B. V. Nagarathna and M.G. Uma JJ. held that the accused does not have a
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara J. rejected instant bail application in light of the observations made by the Court. The instant
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara J. dismissed the petition on the observations made hereunder. The facts of the case are such
“The experience of rape induces trauma and horror for any woman regardless of her social position in the society. But the experiences of assault are different in the case of a woman who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and has a disability because the assault is a result of the interlocking of different relationships of power at play.”
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit, J., granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of committing sexual offence. Petitioner was accused for the
Bombay High Court: Prithviraj K. Chavan, J., dismissed the present appeal filed challenging the Judgment passed by Special Judge under Protection of
Supreme Court: While hearing the plea seeking compensation of Rs 10 lakh for the parents of an eight-month old baby who was
Supreme Court: Refusing to expand the scope of the word ‘child’ under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) to include the