Back
SANJAY KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Sushil Kumar Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Hare Ram Sah – Respondent
The judgment stated that the victim’s age was sufficiently established through unrebutted oral and documentary evidence. It also noted that minor discrepancies regarding the exact age or specific date details do not necessarily undermine the prosecution’s case, especially when such discrepancies do not cause prejudice or mislead the trial process. This is mentioned in the context of the evidence supporting the victim's age and the credibility of the case. The relevant paragraph addressing this is (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The struggle for sensitivity towards offences against women, children and other marginalized groups passes through various phases of evolution. Whereas, the end goal is most desirable, the journey is not always a pleasant one. At times, the victims find themselves pitched against a system full of insensitive stakeholders and at other times, the victims find themselves in conflict with the procedural intricacies of the laws in place. Despite the importance of procedural sanctity, it is always a matter of utter failure for the system as a whole when a culprit, that too of a heinous sexual offence, manages to walk free by entangling the victim in misapplication of procedural rules, without the knowledge of the victim and without any control of the victim. The present case presents one such illustration from a place called Piro, District Bhojpur, Bihar.
3. In 2016, a few months after the festival of Holi, the victim - the appellant’s daughter - started feeling unwell. Upon finding that her health was constantly deteriorating, the appellant’s wife took their daughter to her native place in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh for treatment. There,
(1) Effect of omission or defect in charge – Mere discovery of an error, irregularity or omission in framing of charge does not ipso facto render decision of Court as invalid.(2) Joinder of trial – W....
(1) Joint trial is a matter of judicial discretion – Joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at outset of proceedings and for cogent reasons.(2) Mere discovery of error, irregularity or omis....
Joint trials are acceptable for closely related offences, but accused must demonstrate prejudice due to any procedural irregularities for a trial to be invalidated.
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's minor status and the identity of the perpetrators, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The need for strong, compelling, and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in a criminal case, and the distinction between the trial of Sessions case and the trial held before the Judic....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of two appellants in a gang rape case.
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
