All HC: Can’t Invoke Penalty Proceedings u/s 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 For Search And Seizure Of Godown  ||  All. HC: Businessman Doing Business Activities Within Slum Can’t Be Called a Slum Dweller  ||  SC: No Charity Being Done By State For Paying Compensation to Person Whose Land Was Acquired  ||  Gauhati HC: Can’t Shift Burden of Proof on Accused if Multiple Witnesses of Crime Present  ||  SC: Contempt Notice Issued Against Patanjali For Continued Publishing of Misleading Advertisements  ||  SC: Registry Can’t Decide Whether or Not Review Petiton Merits Relook Through Curative Petiton  ||  Bom. HC: Imprisonment Exceeding Twelve Months Can’t Be Given For Default in Payment of Maintenance  ||  Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary    

Ruksana Begum and Ors. v. State - (High Court of Delhi) (19 Aug 2015)

High Court dispenses with delayed FIR and lack of corroborating evidence in accepting statement of prosecutrix



In a case where the underage Prosecutrix was kidnapped by the Appellants and subjected to rape by several persons, the High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellants. It noted a delay of over two weeks in lodging a 'missing person report' by the parents of the Prosecutrix, failure by the investigating agency to provide call records of the Appellants, materials to ascertain if other girls were misused and non-determination of the identity of individuals who had established sexual relations with the Prosecutrix. However, these factors were held to not be sufficient to discard the Prosecutrix's cogent testimony, or refute the fact that the Appellants were running a prostitution ring.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved