NDLI: Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 - ss.366 and 3~6 r/w s.109:PW-2 was allegedly abducted and thereafter subjected to forcible marriage and rape - Eight accused - Convictionof, by Courts below - Justification of - Held: Not justified . The entire story about the abduction by car and the forcedmarriage was seemingly concocted - It cannot be ruled out that PW-2's father suspected that PW-2 was romanticallyinvolved with A-1 - Therefore, when she disappeared from home, A-1 was pre~;umed to be responsible for it and hence.the false story of abduction - Conclusions made by the High Court that PW-2 would not have voluntarily gone with A-1 and that she was not a major at the relevant time are contrary to the evidence on record - No reliable evidence to vouchsafethe correctness of the date of birth as recorded in the school transfer certificate of PW-2 - Expert evidence did not rule outthe possibility of PW-2 being a major-:- Even after the alleged marriage with A-1, PW-2 continued to be a willing partner in the entire episode - She did not protest nor made any complaint though she had the opportunity to do so on manyoccasions - Conduct of PW-2 from the time of her alleged abduction till the time of her alleged recovery was not natural .for a girl who had been compelled to marry and subjected to illicit sexual intercourse - The trial court as we// as the. HighCourt failed to take into consideration the inherent improbabilities in the case - The findings recorded by boththe Courts below were perverse and unsupportable by the evidence on record - Accused-appellants clearly entitled tobenefit of doubt, thus, acquitted. Rape victim - Date of birth of the victim - Entry in her school transfer certificate - Evidentiary value of - Held: Thedate of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entryor who gave the date of birth is examined - On facts, the father of the victim said nothing about the transfer certificate in hisevidence - The Headmaster of the school was also not examined - There was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe for the truth of the facts stated in the transfer certificate - The burden of proof having not been discharged by theprosecution, the entry in the transfer certificate could not be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the victim - EvidenceAct, 1872 - s.35.Rape victim - Determination of victim's age - Radiological examination - Margin of error in age asascertained in radiological examination. Rape victim - Conviction based on sole evidence of the victim - Permissibility of - Held: The testimony of a victim ofsexual assault stands at par with testimony of an injured witness, and is entitled to great weight - Corroboration is notthe sine qua non for conviction in a rape case - Conviction can be recorded on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of avictim provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence.Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Powers under scope and ambit of - Held: Even though the powers of theSupreme Court under Article 136 are very wide, but in criminal appeals, the Supreme Court cannot interfere with theconcurrent findings of facts, save in very exceptional cases.The assessment of the evidence by the High Court isaccepted as final except where the conclusions recorded by the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable by Athe evidence on record.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 55
Petitioner	Alamelu & Anr.
Respondent	State Represented By Inspector Of Police
SCR	[2011] 2 S.C.R. 147
Judgement Date	2011-01-18
Case Number	1053

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

Kumar Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Sivamani and Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, Vel- Lore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District

Stalin Vs. State Represented By The Inspector of Police

State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu Vs. Sait & Krishnakumar

Kadamanian @ Manikandan Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Mariappan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. Vs. The Inspector of Police

Muthuramalingam & Ors. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. Vs. State By Adugodi Police Station & Anr.

Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Kumar Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Sivamani and Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, Vel- Lore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District

Stalin Vs. State Represented By The Inspector of Police

State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu Vs. Sait & Krishnakumar

Kadamanian @ Manikandan Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Mariappan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. Vs. The Inspector of Police

Muthuramalingam & Ors. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. Vs. State By Adugodi Police Station & Anr.

Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police