Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Rajubhai Ganpatbhai Ravat(Senma) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant – accused has filed an application through jail seeking temporary bail wherein he has prayed to withdraw the criminal appeal. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court thought it fit to fix the main appeal for final hearing and, therefore, the matter is adjourned, today. Therefore, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. The accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Pocso), Mehsana (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2016, whereby present appellant (accused) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506(2) etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) and directed him to undergo sentence of seven years imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, ten years imprisonment for the offence under
The court confirmed the conviction based on the victim's credible testimony in a rape case, emphasizing that corroboration is not mandatory in such offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated testimony, along with the importance of medical evidence and the need to explain delays in lodging FI....
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Testimony of prosecutrix is infirm, contradictory and doubtful, which does not inspire confidence....
The need for corroboration in cases based solely on the victim's testimony, especially in cases of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the importance of fair consideration for both the victim an....
The sole testimony of a victim in a rape case can sustain a conviction if found credible, regardless of the existence of physical evidence or corroborating witnesses.
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in FIR and contradictions in testimonies, leading 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
