Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
Lokesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for related appeals. (Para 1) |
| 2. overview of the prosecution case and evidence. (Para 10) |
| 3. challenging the conviction based on evidence. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. review of legal provisions regarding the offences. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. clarification on requirements for proving rape and gang rape. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. presentation of medical evidence supporting the prosecution. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. validity and importance of dna evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. no need for all accused to directly commit the act for conviction. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. final judgment and order of the court. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Binod Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Since both the appeal are arising out of a common judgment dated 08/12/2005, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
02. These appeals under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Code') have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 08/12/2005 passed in Special Case No.04/2013 by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ratlam (M.P
Convictions for gang rape are valid even if not every accused commits the act individually, provided evidence supports common intent and participation.
The absence of direct evidence does not negate a conviction if circumstantial evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of direct evidence to prove the awareness of the victim's caste for conviction under section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedu....
The court upheld the conviction for gang rape and wrongful confinement, affirming the reliability of the victim's testimony and DNA evidence against the appellant under Sections 376(D.A.) and 342 of ....
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's minor status and the identity of the perpetrators, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the court may rely on evidence such as DNA testing to establish the guilt of the accused, and the benefit of the doubt may be rejected based on....
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
