Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJNISH KUMAR, ZAFEER AHMAD
Rajendra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
(1) The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the accused/convict/appellant, Rajendra, assailing the judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No. 485 of 2005; State Versus Rajendra, emanating from Case Crime No. 112 of 2005, under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here-in-after referred to as “I.P.C.”), Police Station Beniganj, district Hardoi, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default in payment of fine, the accused/appellant would undergo one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.
(2) The prosecution case, in short, is that complainant, Smt. Rooprani, had submitted a written report at police station Beniganj, district Hardoi on 30.03.2005, alleging therein that she is the resident of village Bargadiya, hamlet of Atiya Majhigawan, police station Beniganj, Hardoi. Yesterday, in the afternoon of 28.03.2005, her husband had gone to his maternal vi
Rape conviction quashed due to unreliable victim testimony with inconsistencies and improvements, manipulated age records doubting minority, absent medical evidence despite multiple claims, unexplain....
It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of offence of rape is not an accomplice after crime.
The court affirmed that a victim's testimony, especially from a minor, can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases, even without medical corroboration.
The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence, without the need for corroboration.
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.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must consider the reliability of the victim's testimony, the presence of serious laches in the prosecution case, and the age....
The prosecution must prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant delays or contradictions in testimonies can undermine a conviction.
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
