DELHI HIGH COURT
string, string
Mohd. Alam v. State
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details for appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. eyewitness accounts and testimonies. (Para 5 , 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. evidence corroboration and inconsistencies. (Para 12 , 14 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding evidence reliability. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 30) |
| 5. sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. judicial approach towards minor victims. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 49) |
| 7. final judgment and sentencing order. (Para 44 , 46 , 50) |
1The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th April, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 94/1998. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted of an offence punishable under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to the IPC) for raping a minor girl of 10 years of age. On 19th April, 1999, the appellant was heard on the question of sentence and thereafter by an order passed on the same day, he was punished with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.
2. Allegations against the appellant are that on 23
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.