Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA
Hari Ram – Appellant
Versus
State (Nct Of Delhi) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction stems from a failure to prove innocence against substantial evidence. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘ Cr.P.C.’) has been filed assailing the judgement of conviction dated 22.09.2023 and order on sentence dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), ASJ-01, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi whereby the appellant has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 6706/2016 arising out of FIR No. 120/2012 under Sections 342/363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’) registered at Police Station South Campus.
2. The appellant by way of the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2023 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section s 363 /376 of the IPC and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 342 of the IPC. Vide the order on sentence dated 18.01.2024, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to under
DNA evidence combined with corroborative circumstances suffices to establish guilt for rape despite a lack of external injuries.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in testimonies alongside lack of medical corroboration can lead to acquittal.
The conviction for rape was upheld based on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, while the conviction under the SC/ST Act was quashed due to lack of evidence regarding the accused's knowledge of the....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of medical evidence can lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that corroboration is not required for the testimony of the victim in case of rape if the evidence is of sterling quality. The judgme....
Partial penetration is sufficient for a conviction of attempted rape, reaffirming the necessity of proven intent to commit the offence.
Insufficient evidence for conviction under IPC Section 376(1) necessitates conviction for attempted rape under Section 376/511 due to partial penetration.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in the survivor's testimony led to the acquittal of the accused.
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
