Skip to main content

Victim's version enough to nail accused in sexual assault and in such cases women can complain of crime much later: HC

The Bombay High Court has held that in cases of outraging modesty of women, the evidence tendered by the victim should be sufficient to nail the accused and it was not necessary to seek corroboration.

The court observed this while finding a man guilty of outraging the modesty of his brother's wife. In this regard, the Judge relied entirely upon the evidence given by the victim.

"Such evidence can be given only by the victim herself.

The victim has been cross-examined at length. However, no discrepancies were pointed out in her evidence. "No other can depose on her behalf", the Judge noted in her order on June 10.

The court dismissed an appeal filed by Ashok Ghodke against a Pune magistrate's order finding him guilty of outraging the modesty of his sister-in-law. However, he and other family members had been acquitted of charges of cruelty (section 498A) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code.

The high court also upheld the lower court's order of February 24, 2009, rejecting the plea of the accused that there was no independent witness in the case.

"There would be none under such circumstances. Only her (the victim's) little son was present with her. The incident happened after midnight. Hence the neighbours would be asleep", the judge observed.

"She was not allowed to shout when she tried to shout because the applicant herein closed her mouth. He would have overpowered her. The learned magistrate has rightly observed that multiplication of witnesses is unnecessary and such evidence needs no corroboration of any sort", Justice Dalvi remarked.

Taking into consideration the reality that women may take time to lodge a complaint of a crime committed against them, the Bombay high court has ruled that such complaints do not have to be lodged within hours of the crime.

"It is settled law that complaints by women for offences against women are not mandatorily required to be filed within hours," said Justice Roshan Dalvi.

Article referred: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/338471/victim039s-version-enough-nail-accused.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more