NDLI: State of U.p. Vs. Chhoteylal

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	PENAL CODE 1860 : ss. 363 366 368 and 376
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 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	PENAL CODE, 1860 :ss. 363, 366, 368 and 376 - Kidnapping, wrongful confinement and rape -Conviction by trial court with 7 years R.I. - Acquittal by High Court -Held: Prosecutrix being less than 18 years of age, was removed from the lawful custody of her brother and was taken to a city by ~o adult males under threat and kept in a room for many days where one of the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The High Court was not at all justified in taking a different view from the trial court - High Court has dealt with the matter with casual approach and its judgement is not only cryptic and perfunctory but it has also not taken into consideration the crucial evidence on record - Rape is a heinous crime, and once it is established, justice must be done to the victim of crime by awarding suitable punishment to the accused - Judgement of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored - Evidence - Sentence/sentencings. 90 and s.375, Clauses 'Firstly' and 'Secondly' - Rape Expressions 'against her will' and 'without her consent' - Explained - Held: The concept of consent in the context of s. 375 has to be read with s. 90.s.375, Clause 'Sixthly' -Held: Prosecutrix at the relevant time being about 17 ~years of age, Clause 'Sixthly' would not be applicable.EVIDENCE:Age of prosecutrix - Medical evidence and oral testimony. The evidence of prosecutrix and her elder brother stating her age as 13 years at the relevant time -Medical evidence indicating her age as 17 years - Held : The trial court on consideration of evidence on record rightly recorded a categorical finding that the prosecutrix was about 17 ~ years of age at the time of occurrence - It cannot be said that best evidence has been withheld - There is no rule, much less an absolute rule that two years have to be added to the age determined by the doctor - High Court fell in grave error in observing that prosecutrix could be even 19 years of age at the time of occurrence. Evidence of the victim of rape - Held : A victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime - Her evidence is similar to that of an injured complainant or witness - The testimony of prosecutrix, if found reliable, by itself may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary - Court must be sensitive and responsive to the plight of such victim of sexual assault. F.l.R. - Delay in registration of-A village girl kidnapped from her village and taken to city - FIR registered after 10 days - Held: The brother has given a plausible explanation - The delay in registration of the FIR has been reasonably, explained Delay/Laches.ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE:Criminal justice - Criminal cases relating to offences against the State, corruption, dowry death, domestic violence, sexual assault, financial fraud and cyber crimes - Need to be fast tracked - Immediate and urgent steps required to be taken in amending the procedural and other laws - The investigators need to have professional orientation and modem tools - Police reforms.as directed in Prakash Singh's judgements should be carried out.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 48
Petitioner	State Of U.p.
Respondent	Chhoteylal
SCR	[2011] 1 S.C.R. 406
Judgement Date	2011-01-14
Case Number	769

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

State of U.p. Vs. Chhoteylal

Please Log-in to view this content

State of U.p. Vs. Munshi

Sat Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and Another

Md.all@guddu Vs. State of U.p.

State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan @ Hemant Janardhan Wankhede

Pardeep Kumar Vs. Union Administration, Chandigarh

State of H.p. Vs. Suresh Kumar @ Chhotu

Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Vs. State of Gujarat

Lochan Shrivas Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

State of U.p. Vs. Chhoteylal

State of U.p. Vs. Chhoteylal

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of U.p. Vs. Munshi

Sat Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and Another

Md.all@guddu Vs. State of U.p.

State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan @ Hemant Janardhan Wankhede

Pardeep Kumar Vs. Union Administration, Chandigarh

State of H.p. Vs. Suresh Kumar @ Chhotu

Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Vs. State of Gujarat

Lochan Shrivas Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

State of U.p. Vs. Chhoteylal