Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The definition of ‘rape’ excludes acts between a man and his wife, not below the age of fifteen years, performed during the subsistence of a valid marriage.”
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, overall evidence adduced by the prosecution, the mode and manner in which the incident had taken place, the Court opined that some reprieve in the matter of sentence deserved to be given to the convict who had been incarcerated since more than four years.
“Considering the age of the convict at the time of the commission of the offence and the nature of the offence made out from the materials on record, a lenient view can be taken. The interest of justice can be met by adequately compensating the victim.”
“Youngsters are prone to commit mistakes/follies during their teens or young age for which they cannot be branded as deviant and wholly unreliable.”
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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that under Section 375 of IPC any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with his wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, therefore, absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance.
The present case is “nothing but the assimilation of personal and political antipathies, more precisely, a politically oriented-animosity, which makes the petitioner’s prosecution malicious.”
Holding that commission of rape on a woman’s dead body would not attract Ss. 375 and 377, Penal Code, 1860, the Court pointed out that its high time for the Central Government to consider amending S. 377 or introduce a specific provision to address necrophilia, sadism.
TOP STORY OF THE MONTH Marital Rape Split Verdict on Criminalisation of Marital Rape| Can a Husband be labelled as a rapist?
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., observed that touching private parts and kissing on the lips of a minor would not constitute
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bambhani, JJ., while addressing a very unfortunate incident, involving sexual
Allahabad High Court: Anil Kumar Ojha, J., while addressing a matter of child sexual assault, expressed that, Putting penis into the mouth
Chhattisgarh High Court: N K Chandravanshi, J. partly allowed the revision petition by discharging the applicant of charge under Section 376 Penal
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., in regard to quashing of FIRs expressed that: “High Court cannot mechanically quash FIRs for non-compoundable
Madras High Court: B. Pugalendhi, J., while partly allowing the appeal modified the offence to fall under Section 354 of the Penal
Kenya of High Court, Nairobi: A Full Bench of Roselyne Aburili, E.C. Mwita and John M. Mativo, JJ. dismissed a petition regarding
“Criminalising consensual same sex in private, between adults is not in the public interest. Such criminalization….disproportionally impacts on the lives and dignity
Uttarakhand High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J. has asked the State of Uttarakhand whether an Investigating Officer, by conducting DNA tests, has the
Bombay High Court: The Bench of Mridula Bhatkar, J. quashed and set aside the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, refusing to