Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Based on Prosecutrix Testimony

        Vijay Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

        Vijay Versus State of Madhya Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Sole Evidence of Prosecutrix
        2. Test Identification Parade
        3. Discrepancies and Inconsistencies in Depositions of Witnesses
        4. Injury on the Person of the Prosecutrix
        5. Determination of Age
        6. Evidence of Rustic/Illiterate Villager

        Detailed Analysis:

        Sole Evidence of Prosecutrix:
        The court emphasized that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual assault case holds significant weight and does not require corroboration unless there are compelling reasons. The court cited several precedents, including State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain and State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus, which affirmed that the evidence of a prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if it is reliable and credible. The court concluded that the prosecutrix's consistent statements and the lack of evidence of consent supported the conviction.

        Test Identification Parade:
        The court noted that while a Test Identification Parade (TIP) can corroborate a witness's identification of the accused, it is not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the identification made in court. The court referenced State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P., emphasizing that TIP is primarily an investigative tool and not mandatory for conviction. The absence of TIP in this case did not discredit the prosecution's case.

        Discrepancies and Inconsistencies in Depositions of Witnesses:
        The court acknowledged minor discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements but deemed them immaterial. It cited State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash and State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, which held that minor contradictions that do not affect the core of the prosecution's case should not lead to the rejection of evidence. The court concluded that the discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony.

        Injury on the Person of the Prosecutrix:
        The court held that the absence of physical injuries on the prosecutrix does not negate the occurrence of rape, especially if the prosecutrix is a minor. Citing Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana and Devinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court noted that the lack of injuries might indicate non-resistance due to fear or timidity. The medical examination corroborated the prosecutrix's account of non-consensual intercourse.

        Determination of Age:
        The court considered the medical evidence provided by Dr. Rupa Lalwani, who opined that the prosecutrix was between 12 and 14 years old based on physical examination. The court noted that the non-production of the Radiological Test report did not warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution, as the defense did not question the Investigating Officer on this matter. The court upheld the finding that the prosecutrix was a minor, making consent irrelevant under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act.

        Evidence of Rustic/Illiterate Villager:
        The court recognized that the prosecutrix's background as an illiterate, rustic villager might affect her ability to provide a precise account of the incident. Citing Dimple Gupta (minor) v. Rajiv Gupta, the court held that this background should not discredit her testimony. The court found her statements credible despite minor inconsistencies, given her socio-economic status and lack of education.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, finding no merit in the appeal. The court affirmed the lower courts' judgments, emphasizing the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the irrelevance of minor discrepancies, and the adequacy of the medical evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were maintained.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found