Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the guise of loving the minor girl, the boy had poured some intoxicating substance in the tea which made the girl unconscious and had aggravated sexual intercourse with her.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
There was no occasion for the State to file the present appeal, as once it is on record that the prosecutrix was living happy married life with the respondent, then, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the respondent and the prosecutrix.
The Court held that while delay in reporting rape is not always material, in the present case, it is crucial due to the complainant’s history and the timing of her allegations.
‘In a young age when relationship develops, they naturally carry impression that they will get married. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge the FIR saying that rape has been committed with her.”
The Court observed that the parents of the victims were illiterate and that the appellant’s allegations of false implications and extortion on the victim’s family’s part did not inspire any confidence as per evidence on record.
A relationship may be consensual at the beginning, but the same state may not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist.
“The Court below lost sight of the rudimentary principle governing rape and convicted the convict on the strength of the gospel that Indian women do not lie in such matters, which cannot be sustained, as the facts surrounding each and every case and the evidence available ought to form the basis of arriving at a finding, and the surrounding scenario cannot be the basis to render a finding.”
“There is clear distinction between rape and a consensual sex. The Court in such cases carefully examined whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had a malafide motive and had made a false promise to this effect to satisfy his lust, as latter false ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between breach of promise or not fulfilling the promise.”
‘The D.G.P., U.P., Lucknow is directed to file affidavit enclosing the circulars related to the accountability of the Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Monitoring Officer and other higher officials, by the next date of listing’
“No reasonable person would believe the prosecutrix’s allegations given the circumstances and inconsistencies in her statements.”
The Court criticised the investigating officer and the treating doctor for not informing the survivor’s family about the pregnancy and the option for termination, considering the survivor’s minor status and health risks.
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 Gauhati High Court noted that after completion of the investigation, the petitioner was not examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to enable him to personally explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, nor was his statement recorded.
The Court opined that the prosecution did not place any material or evidence to conclude that reformation, rehabilitation, and social re-integration of the accused into society was not possible.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
MP High Court opined that continuous threat of false implication can demean and destroy an individual’s self-esteem and career, significantly contributing to psychological distress and potentially leading to suicide.
MP High Court held that the Court could not allow its authority to be used to terminate an unborn child when there is an intent to later deny the occurrence of the alleged offense.
“Request for the addition of the charge under section 370 IPC, as it stood prior to 2013, cannot be made at the instance of the prosecution. An addition of charge has to be done by the Court based upon its own satisfaction and not at the behest of any of the parties to the trial”
‘Victim would have thought that she would find monastery in the lap of her father, instead, he turned out to be a monster.’