Telangana High Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Victim’s Age

12Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Victim’s Age

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor under Sections 363/376 IPC. The school certificate (Ex.P11) lacked corroborative evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as the source of birth records was unverified. Additionally, charges of kidnapping (Section 363) and wrongful confinement (Section 342) were unsubstantiated, as the victim’s voluntary companionship and lack of coercion negated criminal intent. The Court emphasized that mere entries in official documents require independent proof to establish age conclusively, and absence of non-consensual sexual intercourse invalidated the rape charge (Section 376). Benefit of doubt was granted due to insufficient evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Birka Shiva...

Supreme Court Exposes False Allegations, Quashes FIR in Sexual Assault Case

The Supreme Court of India quashed FIRs No. 103 of 2022 and 751 of 2021, and all consequent proceedings, finding no prima facie material to substantiate allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage. The Court noted inherent contradictions in the complaints and found the complainant's allegations to be fabricated and malicious, indicating manipulative and vindictive tendencies. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag, the appellant, challenging an order from the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, which rejected his petition to quash FIR No. 103 of 2022. This FIR, registered at Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, alleges offenses under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(2)(v)...

Supreme Court Big Consumer Protection Verdict: Tenure, Transparency, and Tribunal Reforms

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the appointment process and tenure of members in State and District Consumer Commissions. It mandates judicial majority in selection committees and a five-year tenure, overturning previous rules. The Court also clarifies that written examinations are not required for judicial members, but are necessary for non-judicial members for both appointment and reappointment. Facts Of The Case: The genesis of this case lies in challenges to the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. Initially, the Bombay High Court struck down certain rules concerning eligibility criteri...