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

1994 Supreme(Guj) 65

SHARAD D.DAVE
VEDVA VAGHARI RAMESH RAMABHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.Y.MANKAD, K.N.VALIKARIMVALA, YOGESH S.MANKAD

DAVE, J.

( 1 ) IN this Conviction Appeal instead of concerning with the merits of the case, I feel, I am concerned with a technical off-shoot. The question before me is in respect of the real intent and spirit of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions contained under Sec. 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code, together with the provisions contained under Paragraph 125 of the Criminal Manual.

( 2 ) THE appellant accused came to be prosecuted for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Secs. 376 and 502 of Indian penal Code on the accusation that on 7-6-1991 at village Bhilwada under palitana taluka of Bhavnagar district, the appellant accused ravished the minor prosecutrix against her will and without consent. The proceedings have resulted in the judgment of conviction and sentence, under which the appellant accused is sentenced to the R. I. for seven years and a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default to the R. I. of six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence under Sec. 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code is concerned the appellant accused has been sentenced to the R. I. of two years and to a fine of Rs. 500. 00in de


















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