MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R.K. Koutilya, J
Miyanlal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on the testimonies of the prosecutrix and witnesses. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. defense claims lack of evidence and false implication. (Para 3 , 7 , 15) |
| 3. importance of appropriate punishment in sexual crimes. (Para 6 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. sole testimony of victim can be sufficient for conviction. (Para 8 , 13) |
1. In these three appeals from jail, the accused - appellants have called the question the defensibility of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 231/96 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. The accused - Miyanlal and Faggu have been found guilty for offences punishable under S.363, S.366 and S.376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under S. 363, I.P.C.; for five years under S. 366, IPC; and for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under S. 376(2)(g), IPC and to a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. There is a direction for concurrent running of sentences. The accused - appellant Pyarelal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three y
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.