IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 2006
Decided On: 14.01.2011
Appellants: State of U.P
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Evidence Act - Sections 114 and 118; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Sections 164 and 313; Indian Penal Code - Sections 90, 363, 366, 368, 375 and 376
State of Karnataka v. Bantara Sudhakara @ Sudha and Anr. MANU/SC/7843/2008 : (2008) 11 SCC 38; Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam (2009) 14 SCC 541; Holman v. The Queen (1970) W.A.R. 2; People v. McIlvain 55 Cal. App. 2d 322; People v. Pelvino 214 N.Y.S. 577; Hallmark v. State 22 Okl. Cr. 422; State v. Schwab 143 N.E. 29; State of H.P. v. Mango Ram MANU/SC/0527/2000 : (2000) 7 SCC 224; Uday v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0162/2003 : (2003) 4 SCC 46; State of Maharasthra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain MANU/SC/0122/1990 : (1990) 1 SCC 550; State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0366/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 384; Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0522/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 191; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0090/1983 : (1983) 3 SCC 217; Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/8516/2006 : (2006) 8 SCC 1; R. v. Day 9 C. and P. 724
State of Karnataka v. Bantara
Sudhakara @ Sudha and Anr. MANU/SC/7843/2008 Discussed
Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam Dissented
Holman v. The Queen Discussed
People v. McIlvain Discussed
People v. Pelvino Discussed
Hallmark v. State Discussed
State v. Schwab Discussed
State of H.P. v. Mango Ram MANU/SC/0527/2000 Discussed
Uday v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0162/2003 Discussed
State of Maharasthra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain MANU/SC/0122/1990 Discussed
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0366/1996 Discussed
Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0522/2010 Mentioned
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0090/1983 Discussed
Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/8516/2006 Mentioned
R. v. Day 9 C. and P. 724 Mentioned
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal, by special leave, because the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the Respondent.
2. The prosecution case in brief is this: On September 19, 1989 the prosecutrix (name withheld by us) had gone to relieve herself in the evening. Ram Kali (A-3) followed her on the way. While she was returning and reached near the plot of one Vijai Bahadur, Chhotey Lal (A-1) and Ramdas (A-2) came from behind; A-1 caught hold of her and when she raised alarm, A-1 showed fire-arm to her and gagged her mouth. A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 brought the prosecutrix upto the road. There, A-3 parted company with A-1 and A-2. A-1 and A-2 then took the prosecutrix to Village Sahora. On the night of September 19, 1989, the prosecutrix was kept in the house of Girish and Saroj Pandit in Village Sahora. On the next day i.e., September 20, 1989, in the wee hours, A-1 and A-2 took the prosecutrix in a bus to Shahajahanpur where she was kept in a rented room for few days. During their stay in Shahajahanpur, A-1 allegedly committed forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix. Whenever prosecutrix asked for return to her house,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document