Back
P.VENKATARAMA REDDI, P.P.NAOLEKAR
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with proper references.
JUDGMENT
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-The appellant has been charged and convicted under Section 376 IPC for committing rape of a minor girl (figured as PW12 in this case) in the month of February, 1988. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge of Katihar sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to seven years. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the accused.
Facts :
2. The victim girl lodged a complaint to the police on 29.11.1988 i.e., long after the alleged act of rape. By the date of the report, she was pregnant by six months. Broadly, the version of the victim girl was that she and the accused were neighbours and fell in love with each other and one day, the accused forcibly raped her and later consoled her saying that he would marry her, that she succumbed to the entreaties of the accused to have sexual relations with him, on account of the promise made by him to marry her and therefore continued to have sex on several occasions. After she became pregnant, she revealed the matter to her parents. Even thereafter the intimacy continued to the knowledge of the parents and other r
**All cases in the list (primarily Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88, and its variants across IDs like ROSHNI MALLIK VS STATE - 2006 0 Supreme(Del) 328, ABDUL SALAM VS STATE OF M. P. - 2006 0 Supreme(MP) 718, Yedla Srinivasa Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Crimes (2006), etc.)**: Overwhelmingly cited as binding precedent on "consent" under Section 375/90 IPC, especially in promise-to-marry rape contexts. Examples:
* "Yedla Srinivasa Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Crimes (2006): Our attention was also invited to the decision of this Court in the case of Deelip Singh Alias Dilip Kumar Vs. ... State of Bihar [(2005) 1 SCC 88] wherein this Court took the view..." (direct approval by same court).
* "Kamraj Das VS State of Tripura - 2006 0 Supreme(Gau) 1026: In (2005) 1 SCC 88 (Deelip Singh v. ... State of Bihar) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasioned to deal with the consent..." (relied on for legal principle).
* "Jasim Uddin VS State of Assam - 2007 0 Supreme(Gau) 342: These aspects of the word 'consent' ... have been succinctly described in Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar..." (praised as succinct exposition).
* "Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma VS State of Bihar - 2007 5 Supreme 918: As observed by this Court in Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar (2005 (1) SCC 88)..." (quoted as authoritative observation).
* Numerous others (e.g., NAUSHAD VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 666, BHAIYYAN ALIAS SHAFIULLAH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 537, Jasim Uddin VS State of Assam - 2007 0 Supreme(Gau) 326, Bitu Ram VS State of H. P. - Crimes (2014), Dharmarajan VS State of Kerala - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 219) quote paras (e.g., para 20, 21) approvingly, apply its ratio on vitiated consent/misconception of fact, or note it "clarified" prior cases like Uday v. State of Karnataka.
* Later cases like Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar (2007) are frequently paired with it as consistent authority (e.g., Senthilkumar VS The State by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Namakkal District - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 1973, Biplab Roy VS State of Tripura - 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 179).
**Supporting cases like Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003)**: Cited alongside and "clarified" or "further explained" by Deelip Singh (e.g., Mallesh VS State of Karnataka Represented by Circle Inspector of Police - Crimes (2013): "further clarified in ... Deelip Singh"; Sanganna VS State of Karnataka represented by Wadi Police Station - 2013 0 Supreme(Kar) 121: "clarified in Deelip Singh"; Rajesh Rana VS State Of Himachal Pradesh - 2012 0 Supreme(HP) 977: notices para 21 of Uday and approves). Treated as good law, with Deelip providing elaboration.
**Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh v. State**: Referenced approvingly within Deelip Singh quotes (e.g., Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma VS State of Bihar - 2007 5 Supreme 918, Safdar Abbas Zaidi VS State of Telangana, Through SHO, Malkajgiri Police Station, Rachakonda - 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 393), as foundational on consent not being exhaustive under S.90.
**Explanation**: 99%+ of snippets show positive treatment—phrases like "as observed by this Court," "relied upon," "held as under," "succinctly described," "clarified," "further explained," "squarely applicable," "we sincerely subscribe," indicate following/approval. No negative treatment of core holdings.
**Manik Das Baishnav vs State - 2012 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14**: "promise - The court distinguished this case, noting dissimilarities in circumstances surrounding the promise of marriage. State of Bihar , reported in 2005 (1) SCC 88"
**Explanation**: Explicit "distinguished" language based on factual differences, not disapproving the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
