Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Asaram Bapu was sentenced to life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC for raping a sevika at Surat Ashram, in the name of her promotion as an orator for religious discourses.
The complainant was adult enough to know that the law forbids a second marriage and there was no allegation in the complaint that applicant promised to divorce his first wife and then marry her.
The Court noted that Section 90 of IPC does not define the term “consent”, but the law does not see “consent derived from a fear of injury and misconception of fact” as consent.
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.
Sexual violence against a woman should invite no tolerance, however, manipulating the system by the parties to a case under Section 376 IPC would equally need to be dealt with a stern hand and serious efforts should be made to address and remedy failings within the criminal justice system and through our society.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had refused to grant bail to the accused considering the seriousness of the offence.
The courts should strive to strike a balance between the rights of accused and the practicalities of the legal process. In cases, if the trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through alternative means, the court should be flexible in considering prayers made to this effect by the accused.
“The Courts cannot be used as a forum for pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail, or by the accused for obtaining bail by asking the complainant to appear before the Court and state that he was ready to get married to her.”
The Complainant had filed a second FIR against the accused just after the parties had arrived at a settlement before the Court and the first FIR against the accused was quashed.
Karnataka High Court observed that consent of a woman on a promise to marry is always an enigma.
Woman files petition for compromising an offence under section 376 of IPC, stating that she made the complaint in anger instead of actually being aggrieved.
Supreme Court: In a significant case, the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., upheld pre-arrest bail of actor-producer Vijay
Kerala High Court: In a high-profile rape case that ignited controversy in the cine industry, Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., granted anticipatory bail
Meghalaya High Court: W. Diengdoh, J., has held that the ingredients that are to be seen existing in an allegation of attempt
Supreme Court: In a 20-year-old case relating to rape of a 6-year-old, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, Navin Sinha and KM
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajasekhar Mantha, J. allowed an appeal filed by the appellant against of the
“Courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charge of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity.”
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and Sarang V. Kotwal JJ., addressed a Criminal Appeal by setting aside
Gauhati High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J., convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376(1) of the IPC,