Back
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State by, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Poonamalee, Kancheepuram District – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge-cum- Mahila Court, Chinglepattu (FAC), Kancheepuram District in S.C.No.208 of 2008, dated 22.03.2012.)
The sole accused in Crime No.15 of 2005 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Poonamalee, has preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 22.03.2012 in and by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC., and was imposed with the sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.
2. On 08.07.2005 when P.W.9/Geetha, the Inspector of Police was on duty at All Women Police Station, Poonamallee, P.W.1/Perumayee appeared before her and lodged a complaint to the effect that her elder daughter aged 15 years was at home after being a drop out from the school after studying 8th std. For the past one week, she was looking tired and was sleeping all the time, therefore when she enquired and was taken to Jeevan Hospital, it was realised that she was three months pregnant. She further informed t
The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can be the basis for conviction in sexual assault cases, and the court cannot reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed by law.
Section 376(1) provides that Court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in judgment imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than 7 years.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that consent under fear or misconception is essential to establish the offence of rape, and the court's analysis of the victim's consent and act....
The consent of a minor is immaterial in cases of sexual offences, and any sexual act with a minor under the pretext of marriage constitutes rape under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Consent is immaterial in cases of minors under 16 years; sexual intercourse with a minor constitutes rape irrespective of their consent under Section 375 IPC.
The court determined that the victim's inconsistent statements indicated mutual consent, leading to the reversal of the conviction under the pre-2013 definition of consent in the IPC.
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
