NDLI: Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

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 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860:s. 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - A/legation that accused-kidnapped prosecutrix at knife point and brought her to the house of the appellant - Accused-J talked secretly with the appellant where after appellant provided space and cot to the accused-J - Appellant slept in the same room near the door to guard against the entry of any other person as well as to prevent the prosecutrix from going out - Thereafter accused- raped prosecutrix - Prosecutrix cried for help but appellant did not come to her rescue - Conviction of accused-J and appellant u/s.376(2)(g) - Challenged by appellant - Held:~ There was no doubt that accused raped the prosecutrix - In the entire episode, no role was attributed to the appellant - There was no prior plan or meeting of minds between the appellant and accused-J to either kidnap or to rape the prosecutrix - Intention to kidnap and commit rape was, therefore, the intention of accused-J alone - Collective reading of the evidence showed that the role of the appellant was limited to wrongfully confining the prosecutrix and not rendering help when asked for - The prosecution did not produce any evidence either directly or at least by circumstantial evidence to show that the factum of kidnapping as well as intent to commit a rape was known to the appellant Conviction of appellant u/s.376(2)(g) set aside - However,: his conviction u/s.368 is maintained. s.376(2)(g) - Essential ingredients - Held: Where woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of s.376(2)(g) - Act of gang rape has to be in furtherance of their common intention before the deeming fiction of law can be enforced against the accused - It may . not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused - The provision embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is existence of common intention - Common intention pre-supposes prior concert as there must be meeting of minds, which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders which is revealed during the course of action.FIR: Rape of young girl - Delay in lodging FIR - Effect on prosecution case - Held: A young girl who underwent the trauma of rape is likely to be reluctant in describing those events to anybody including her family members - In the instant case, the moment she told her parents, the report was lodged with the police without any delay - Since reasonable explanation was rendered by the prosecution, delay would not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. Evidence: Contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses - Held: Every small discrepancy or minor contradiction which may erupt in the statements of a witness because of lapse of time, keeping in view the educational and other background of the witness, cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution - The court must examine the statement in its entirety, correct perspective and in light of the attendant circumstances brought on record by the prosecution.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 473
Petitioner	Om Prakash
Respondent	State Of Haryana
SCR	[2011] 7 S.C.R. 1080
Judgement Date	2011-07-07
Case Number	421

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

Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Smt. Laxmi Vs. Om Prakash and Ors.

State of U.p. Vs. Om Prakash

Pappu @ Hari Om Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Om Prakash Vs. State of U.p.

Om Prakash Vs. State of U.p.

Satish Kumar Batra & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Suresh Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

Om Prakash @ Raja Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Smt. Laxmi Vs. Om Prakash and Ors.

State of U.p. Vs. Om Prakash

Pappu @ Hari Om Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Om Prakash Vs. State of U.p.

Om Prakash Vs. State of U.p.

Satish Kumar Batra & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Suresh Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

Om Prakash @ Raja Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana