- 304B (45)
- 498a (9)
- 498a Quash (1)
- 498a/406 (314)
- 65B (13)
- Abetment to Suicide (15)
- Acquittal (86)
- Adultery (2)
- Adultery Judgements (18)
- Annulment (21)
- Application (27)
- articles (84)
- Bail (34)
- business (1)
- Child Custody (60)
- Child Visitation (8)
- Complaint (3)
- Counter Cases/RTI (14)
- court (2)
- CrPC 125 (103)
- Cruelty (233)
- Custody (42)
- Cyber Laws (13)
- Desertion (44)
- Discharge (15)
- Dismissal (14)
- Divorce (364)
- divorce (5)
- Domestic Violence (57)
- Dowry Death (60)
- false cases (3)
- Interim Maintenance (2)
- IRBM/Mutual (27)
- Judgement (1,253)
- Knowledge Center (10)
- Laws (16)
- Maintenance (296)
- Misc. Imp. Cases (62)
- Molestation (1)
- Perjury (10)
- Petition and Replies (3)
- procedure (2)
- quash (146)
- Rape (25)
- rape (2)
- rcr (1)
- Right of Residence (10)
- RTI (24)
- RTI (4)
- S H at Workplace (1)
- Sexual Crimes (29)
- speedy trials (1)
- Success Stories (24)
- Template (56)
- Uncategorized (28)
- Workplace Harassment (1)
- 125
- 406
- 498a
- 498a acquittal
- 498a quash
- 498a quashed
- acquittal
- bail
- Child Custody
- court
- crpc125
- crpc 125
- cruelty
- cruelty by wife
- custody
- decree of divorce
- desertion
- divorce
- divorce decree
- domestic violence
- dowry
- dowry death
- dowry demand
- dv
- false allegations
- false cases
- IPC 498A
- irbm
- judgement
- knowledge
- law
- maintenance
- men's rights
- mental cruelty
- mutual
- No Maintenance
- no maintenance to wife
- PWDVA
- quash
- quashed
- quashing
- rape
- rti
- section 13
- section 125
- section 304b
- section 498a
- shonee
- shonee kapoor
- templates
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Malti Chauhan Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Attempt to rape. Star witness is the prosecutrix herself – MLC of the victim and the FSL report do not support the version of the prosecution – Testimony of the prosecutrix being full of inherent contractions – prosecutrix having taken conflicting stands she could not be termed as a witness of sterling quantity.October 4, 201800 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
STATE Vs. BRIJ DEV TIWARI @ PANDIT
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
Testimony of baby gives clear impression that she was coached and tutored before she gave statement — Medical evidence did not support commission of rape — Delay in lodging FIR has remained unexplained — Judgment of acquittal enhances presumption of innocence of accused.October 3, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
PRADEEP @ BALLI Vs. STATE, NCT OF DELHI
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
Prosecution failed to bring home any of the charges against appellant beyond reasonable doubt — Prosecutrix‘s post-event conduct is unnatural and unacceptable — Prosecutrix was consenting party — She was aware that she was being administered I-pill for prevention of pregnancy.September 29, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Prosecutrix was an adult and mature lady aged around 40 years at the time of incident. She admitted that she was in relationship with Appellant for two years prior to incident and he used to stay overnight at her residence. Evidence as a whole including FIR, testimony of prosecutrix and report prepared by medical practitioner clearly indicate that the story of prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her is concocted and not believable. Sexual acts between Appellant and prosecutrix seem to be consensual in nature. Case set up by prosecutrix seems to be highly unrealistic and unbelievable.September 27, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Ajay Kumar Sonar Vs. State
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
The prosecutrix was a consenting party and she and her mother opted to exonerate him in their cross-examination, the Sentence Order is modified .September 25, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
RAJ KISHORE @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
Wrongful Confinement — Outraging modesty of woman — Rape. No external injuries found on body of prosecutrix ruling out ‘force’ used by accused to ravish her — FSL reports absolve accused of commission of rape — Case of prosecution suffers from inherent inconsistencies and flaws and statement of prosecutrix cannot be taken on its face value to base conviction.September 24, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
State of Karnataka Vs. F. Nataraj
Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The gaps in the evidences of the prosecutrix and the medical officer make it highly improbable that sexual intercourse took place. It would be erroneous to rely upon such discrepant testimonies and convict the accused. It can thus be stated with certitude that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, in absence of any corroboration by the medical evidence, is not of such quality which can be relied upon. The accused-Respondent is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt.September 19, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
RAGHUVINDER HARNA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
Physical relations were outcome of free consent of appellant and prosecutrix and she was willing and consenting party — It did not attract Section 376, IPC.September 18, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Vikul Bakshi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
Section 376- Anticipatory Bail S. 438-The petitioner has joined investigation. The parties were acquainted with each other before the incident. Physical relation between the two took place allegedly on pretext of marriage. Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.September 12, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Mohit Yadav Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
Status report reveals that the petitioner and and the prosecitrix were acquainted with each other – Physical relations were established on several occasions between them. The prosecutrix is married and a major lady. Bail granted to petitioner.September 11, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Tula Ram Rai Vs. State of Sikkim
Court:SIKKIM HIGH COURT
Existence of preponderance of probability – Not sufficient to establish prosecution case, which must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, which prosecution failed – Accused Acquitted.September 1, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Kapil Dev vs State Of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Abduction and Rape – Sexual intercourse on pretext of marriage – Charge stands belied when prosecutrix permitted accused to sexually access her even when accused resiled from his promise and there is delay in lodging FIR – Accused acquitted.August 29, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
State of H.P. vs. Muni Lal
Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Medical evidence shows prosecutrix habitual of sexual intercourse. Delay of one day in reporting the matter to police not explained by prosecution – Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused – Accused rightly Acquitted.August 20, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar
Court:HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
It was un-believable that despite bitterness in relation and denial to marry her, prosecutrix had been enjoying company of Accused – It could be safely presumed that relationship as alleged was not being continued by prosecutrix for assurance of marriage but for other reasons, which did not constitute offence – Testimony of Prosecutrix was un-believable and was not of worth credence – It could not be said that Prosecution was able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.August 16, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
MOHIT NARULA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
Rape — Consent — Fraud — False promise of marriage alleged — Relationship developed — During subsistence of earlier marriage there could have been no false promise to marry complainant by accused petitioner — In view of admitted position in FIR and supplementary statement of complainant recorded during course of investigation that complainant had not legally divorced from her husband, subsistance of earlier marriage, there could be no promise to marriage to respondent No. 2 — Allegations that fraud played on her for receiving consent for sex cannot be substantiated — FIR quashed.August 13, 2018 - Posted by Shonee Kapoor
Jagvati vs State Of Haryana
Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rape -Acquittal- Allegation that she was put under fear of terror and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse is not acceptable in view of the fact that there is no evidence at all to prove this allegation, except the bald statement of the prosecutrix.July 13, 2018