Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJNISH KUMAR
Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu @ Bhuriya – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. analysis of the initial arguments concerning the appeal and evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. testimonies and evidentiary objections regarding the victim's age and actions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. exploration of statutory definitions and implications of established legal standards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. application of case law to substantiate the court's reasoning regarding consent. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final court assessments on evidence and implications for the appellant's conviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. conclusive remarks confirming the validity and reasonableness of the trial court's decision. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Government Advocate (here-in-after referred as AGA).
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (here-in-after referred as CrPC) has been filed for setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Lucknow by means of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2009 passed in Session Trial No. 391/2008:
In rape and kidnapping cases, delays in lodging FIR due to familial considerations are acceptable; the victim's credible testimony can establish the offence of attempted rape even without penetration....
The conviction for kidnapping and attempted rape was upheld, emphasizing that familial relationships do not negate the gravity of sexual offences against minors.
Consensual relationships under false pretenses of marriage do not equate to rape; absence of evidence supporting non-consent leads to acquittal.
Partial penetration is sufficient for a conviction of attempted rape, reaffirming the necessity of proven intent to commit the offence.
The court clarified the distinction between attempted rape and assault, ruling that the appellant's actions constituted assault under IPC Section 354, not attempted rape under Section 376.
Insufficient evidence for conviction under IPC Section 376(1) necessitates conviction for attempted rape under Section 376/511 due to partial penetration.
Attempted rape under IPC Sections 376 and 511 established through credible victim testimony, despite lack of penetration.
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
