https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299336 Material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and investigative gaps meant the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecutrix and her father was inconsistent on key factual details, the alleged tenant was not traced, and material witnesses were not examined. The accused's Section 313 CrPC explanation, including a plea of false implication due to prior litigation, was not properly considered. The conviction for criminal intimidation also lacked separate corroboration and analysis. On that basis, the conviction under Sections 366A and 506 IPC was held unsustainable and acquittal followed. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:34:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299336 Material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and investigative gaps meant the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecutrix and her father was inconsistent on key factual details, the alleged tenant was not traced, and material witnesses were not examined. The accused's Section 313 CrPC explanation, including a plea of false implication due to prior litigation, was not properly considered. The conviction for criminal intimidation also lacked separate corroboration and analysis. On that basis, the conviction under Sections 366A and 506 IPC was held unsustainable and acquittal followed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299336