Man accused of raping daughter acquitted after his death in light of one-sided investigation and unfair trial
Delhi High Court: Observing the approach of the trial court to be wholly misdirected and erroneous, a Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K.
Section 376 IPC
Rape accused acquitted in light of WhatsApp chat between him and prosecutrix
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Hima Kohli and Manoj Kumar Ohri, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of
Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld in light of act being ‘forcible’ and ‘non-consensual’: SC
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed
Slightest penetration, of whatever degree, is sine qua non to attract provision of Section 376 IPC; absence thereof regarded as ‘fondling’: Tripura High Court
Tripura High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Arindam lodh, J. disposed of an appeal wherein the offence under Section 376
Bombay HC refers matter pertaining to parole of a rape convict to larger bench in light of distinct decisions
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of R.K. Deshpande and Arun D. Upadhye, JJ., addressed a petition filed challenging the order
Accused charged for rape acquitted on the basis of “benefit of doubt” of prosecutrix being a consenting party
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, and K.M. Joseph, JJ., allowed an appeal and acquitted the accused-appellant for
Accused acquitted of Section 376 IPC as victim was capable of consenting under law in force at time of incident
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mukta Gupta, J. allowed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the
Rape accused acquitted in light of failure to conduct DNA test that could be a clinching evidence to prove the case
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manish Pitale, J., reversed the judgment of the trial court where the appellant
Criminal complaint filed under a confused state of mind can be quashed
Bombay High Court: Considering the reply filed by the second respondent in the present case, the Division Bench comprising of V. M