Author : Akash Krishnan
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2006
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
INTRODUCTION
Section 354 of IPC deal with outraging the modesty of women using criminal force. Any person who outrages the modesty of a woman by using criminal force or perform an act knowing that it will result in outraging the modesty of a women shall be liable for punishment for a period of imprisonment of 2 years or fine or both.
Section 376 of the Code deals with the punishment of Rape and states that the punishment thereafter may extend to imprisonment for seven years which may extend to life or 10 years and/or fine. The following case deals with these provisions
FACTS
The Appellant was charged with the offence of Rape. He approached the girl after her examination enquiring how the examination went. When she said it was not good, he asked her to come to his place in the evening with the question paper. She informed the same to her parents who sent their younger son along with her to his residence.
Upon arriving, the Appellant asked the boy to go get some snacks from a nearby store and as soon as he left, he grabbed the girl and raped her against the wall of the School.
The evidence of the Doctor stated that it could not be confirmed whether rape has occurred or not. The trial court however passed an order against him sentencing him to 7 years imprisonment. He filed this appeal on the grounds of lack of evidence and that the FIR was filed 3 days late.
ISSUE
Whether the Appellant is guilty of Rape?
JUDGEMENT
The court observed that delay in filing of a FIR cannot be attributed to no offence at all. Being from a small family, it is difficult for a 15-year-old girl to come out with such accusations as it affects the whole family. Moreover, they had approached the School Headmaster first and since he failed to provide any remedy, they filed the FIR.
Secondly the evidence of the doctor was unclear as the examination was conducted 3 days later. His report di mention the fact that the hymen was missing and there were small injuries. Thus, it is enough to confirm the occurrence of rape.
Case Summary : ASHOK SURAJLAL UIKE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Author : Akash Krishnan
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2006
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
INTRODUCTION
Section 354 of IPC deal with outraging the modesty of women using criminal force. Any person who outrages the modesty of a woman by using criminal force or perform an act knowing that it will result in outraging the modesty of a women shall be liable for punishment for a period of imprisonment of 2 years or fine or both.
Section 376 of the Code deals with the punishment of Rape and states that the punishment thereafter may extend to imprisonment for seven years which may extend to life or 10 years and/or fine. The following case deals with these provisions
FACTS
The Appellant was charged with the offence of Rape. He approached the girl after her examination enquiring how the examination went. When she said it was not good, he asked her to come to his place in the evening with the question paper. She informed the same to her parents who sent their younger son along with her to his residence.
Upon arriving, the Appellant asked the boy to go get some snacks from a nearby store and as soon as he left, he grabbed the girl and raped her against the wall of the School.
The evidence of the Doctor stated that it could not be confirmed whether rape has occurred or not. The trial court however passed an order against him sentencing him to 7 years imprisonment. He filed this appeal on the grounds of lack of evidence and that the FIR was filed 3 days late.
ISSUE
Whether the Appellant is guilty of Rape?
JUDGEMENT
The court observed that delay in filing of a FIR cannot be attributed to no offence at all. Being from a small family, it is difficult for a 15-year-old girl to come out with such accusations as it affects the whole family. Moreover, they had approached the School Headmaster first and since he failed to provide any remedy, they filed the FIR.
Secondly the evidence of the doctor was unclear as the examination was conducted 3 days later. His report di mention the fact that the hymen was missing and there were small injuries. Thus, it is enough to confirm the occurrence of rape.