Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, M. R. MENGDEY
Govindbhai Velshibhai @ Virjibhai Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Supehia, J.
1. The present appeals arise out of the judgement and order of conviction dated 18.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli in Special Atrocity Case No.33 of 2009 and 56 of 2009, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 392, 376(2)(g) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and under Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act).
2. The appellants have been sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the IPC to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year and for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(11) of the Atrocities Act, rigorous imprisonment o
In cases of rape, inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, particularly regarding victim identification and age, undermine prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.
Credibility of victim testimony in sexual assault cases is paramount; delays and minor discrepancies in reporting do not invalidate the prosecution's case when strong corroborative evidence exists.
The prosecution must prove each element of a rape charge beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade undermines the reliability of witness identification.
Identification in court serves as primary evidence, with errors in pre-trial identifications not automatically rendering testimonies invalid if verifiable by corroborating evidence.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act does not relieve it of this burden.
Sentence - Kidnapping and abduction - Sentence cannot be reduced as Manner of commission of offence was cruel.
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
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
