Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The convict, his wife, and sister-in-law had attempted to convince and pressurise the victim and her mother to not lodge a complaint and get an abortion.
A mother is sought to be prosecuted for delay in reporting of sexual offences on a child by her own husband, despite the fact that the mother herself was allegedly subject to severe abuse, sexual and otherwise, in her matrimonial home.
Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative assault). The decision was based on an amicable settlement between the parties, with no costs imposed on either side. This case underscores the court’s recognition of mutually agreed resolutions in certain criminal proceedings.
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.
Supreme Court also considered the fact that the inter-faith couple had jointly approached the High Court seeking police protection.
The Patna High Court had rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in this matter, while the Supreme Court granted protection to the petitioner against arrest on 16-12-2022.
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court commented that victim's silence for such a long time would dent her credibility, and such a dent would not justify any further pre-trial incarceration. Thus, the Court allowed bail application, subject to certain conditions.
The Court observed that the convict was a young boy of 20 years, who has no father, and was shouldering the responsibility of his widowed sister and her son, hence, imprisonment for a term of 14 years would be adequate, to teach him a lesson.
Rajasthan High Court: The Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Code), quashed the First
Kerala High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing the
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the decision of the Trial Court whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
Delhi High Court: Stating that, cases under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 should not be quashed and should not be taken
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Prasanna B. Varale and S.M. Modak, JJ., quashed an FIR filed for an offence under
Kerala High Court: In a bail matter, P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., noted the position of law that, a promise to marry made to
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar: Sanjay Dhar, J., expressed that, in the cases involving offences of serious nature falling
Kerala High Court: Dr Kauser Edappagath, J., addressed a matter wherein a married woman voluntarily had sex with her former lover. In
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., cancelled the bail of an accused who lured a female on the pretext of removing an
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap, JJ., refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bambhani, JJ., while addressing a very unfortunate incident, involving sexual