9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against conviction u/s 376 IPC upheld by High Court.
Prosecution Version: - Victim was assaulted and raped by the appellant in a field. - Appellant induced victim not to inform her mother by offering money. - Appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with victim, causing immense pain. - Victim reported the incident to her family upon returning home. Trial and Appeal: - Accused pleaded innocence and false implication. - Trial Court found accused guilty based on prosecutrix's credible evidence. - High Court affirmed Trial Court's conclusions. Arguments: - Appellant's counsel argued inconsistencies in witnesses' evidence and contended offense under Section 376 IPC not made out. - Respondent's counsel supported Trial Court and High Court's analysis, asserting offense u/s 376 IPC established. Legal Analysis - Section 354 IPC: - Outrage of modesty defined as assault on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. - Modesty associated with female sex; accused's intention crucial. - Actions like pulling a woman, coupled with sexual requests, outrage modesty. - Distinction between attempt to commit rape and indecent assault clarified. Judicial Precedents: - Modesty outrage criteria based on contemporary societal standards. - Test for outrage of modesty is whether offender's actions shock decency. - Distinction between preparation and attempt to commit an offense explained. Medical Evidence and Conclusion: - Medical evidence supported victim's testimony of rape. - High Court noted injuries on victim's body consistent with sexual assault. - Appeal dismissed; appreciation for appellant's counsel's efforts acknowledged. This judgment upholds the conviction of the accused u/s 376 IPC based on the victim's credible testimony and medical evidence, emphasizing the importance of proving intent to outrage modesty in cases of sexual assault.
|
