Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

State v. Rahul Shrivastav and anr - (05 Dec 2015)

Court orders perjury proceedings against untruthful ‘victim’

Criminal

A Special Fast Track Court in Delhi directed initiation of proceedings against a prosecutrix for perjuring in her complaint for rape. The Court had noted that Prosecutrix’s version of events were incredible and untruthful, motivated by a desire to extort money from the accused. Noting the time spent in jail by one falsely accused in the pendency of proceedings and “the ignominy, ridicule and harassment suffered by him”, and Prosecutrix’s false depositions without fear of the law, it determined sufficient cause to begin proceedings against her.

Tags : PERJURY   FALSE COMPLAINT   RAPE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved