Back
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Padam Bahadur Bardewa – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - Heard Mr. N. Rai, Learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Sikkim.
2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.PC). The jurisdiction of the revisional court is for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court.
3. The first point urged by Mr. N. Rai was with regard to the delay in lodging First Information Report (in short FIR). The record reveals that the alleged incident happened a day before the lodging of the FIR on 11.03.2019. There does not seem to be any apparent delay. The learned trial court has extensively dealt with the argument made before it and concluded that it is of not much consequence. The learned appellate court has also examined it and arrived at the same conclusion.
4. The next point urged by Mr. N. Rai is, what he alleges, are material contradictions. In support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad v. The
In sexual assault cases, the evidence of the victim must be credible, and sentences for related offences must comply with Section 71 IPC to avoid dual punishment.
The court established that unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and contradictions in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on witness testimonies, consideration of defense evidence, and rejection of the plea of false implication in upholding the con....
In cases of alleged offenses under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of victims carry significant weight, with delays in lodging FIR ....
The court affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an attempt to commit an offense under Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code can lead to conviction, even if the offense was not completed.
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was upheld based on the credible testimony of the victim, while the sentence was reduced from five to three years due to mitigating circumstances.
Conviction under IPC can rely solely on the victim's testimony if credible, but all sentences must adhere to minimum statutory requirements.
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
