Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ
MANAK CHAND @ MANI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ipc section 376 reviewed based on prosecutrix's consent and age. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. testimony of the prosecutrix requires scrutiny; discrepancies in details affect credibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. lack of conclusive evidence on age and circumstances lead to questions of consent. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. court found insufficient evidence to maintain conviction; acquittal granted. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGEMENT
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. The appellant before this Court has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced for seven years of R.I. and Rs.1000/- as fine, with default stipulations. The order of the Trial Court dated 03.09.2001 has been upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as per judgment dated 19.02.2014 in appeal.
2. A First Information Report was lodged on 23.10.2000 by Gian Chand (complainant), who is the father-in-law of appellant’s elder brother Pappu. It states that on 02.09.2000, Pappu requested the complainant to send his younger daughter (who is the present prosecutrix), to his house for taking care of her sister, who had just given birth to a girl child. It is alleged
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
