VIVEK AGARWAL, G.S.AHLUWALIA
Aftab Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 26.08.2006 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 127/2006, by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the life imprisonment.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that on 11.03.2006 at about 05:30 PM, a report was lodged by the complainant Kamal Singh (PW-1) to the effect that his cousin brother Rajesh had called him at about 05:30 PM and informed that the prosecutrix is lying in a pool of blood near Luharpura culvert. The complainant went to the place of incident along with his cousin brother Rajesh and found that the prosecutrix was lying in a pool of blood and had multiple injuries on her body and bleeding was going on from her private part. Some unknown persons had committed rape on her. The police on the basis of statement of the witnesses as well as the Test Identification Parade of the appellant filed the charge-sheet for an offence under Section 376 of IPC.
3. The Trial Court by order dated 10.06
Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1
Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P.
Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 12 SCC 133
Ravi Kapur V/s. State of Rajasthan
Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K
Kishore Chand v. State of H.P.
Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P.
Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2011) 3 SCC 654
Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1958 SC 350
Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A.P. AIR 1960 SC 1340
Budhsen v. State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 128
Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 150
Shyam Narain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 77
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.