SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Del) 467

JASPAL SINGH
SUDESH JHAKU – Appellant
Versus
K. C. J. – Respondent


Jaspal Singh

( 1 ) IS "rape" as defined in section 375 of the Indian Penal Code confined only to penile penetration of vagina? What about penetration of a bodily orifice (vagina, anus or mouth) by a penis or other part of the body, or by an object? Would it fall within the meaning of the words "sexual intercourse" and "penetration" as used in the said provision? These are some of the questions which have arisen in this petition. The other questions raised are also of no less importance. On such question revolves around the ambit and scope of section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. The second is about the precautions to be taken with regard to the recording of the statement of a child witness in a case of sexual abuse. The questions, arise from a sordid story coming from the lips of a child at present aged about eight years. However, let me first introduce the main characters. The narration would follow.

( 2 ) K CJ is at the centre-stage. He is a married man with three daughters, the youngest being B. SJ is his wife. The said three daughters are from her womb. He was an Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the same Ministry worked JV and BB besides two women AK and BK. T































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top