Vikas Singh Vs. State

Vikas Singh vs State

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Jul 12, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701439

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/701439
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 12, 2005
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. 321/2005
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 & 511 -- Conviction and sentence -- Prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove the case -- Statement of prosecutrix had a ring of truth, which clearly deposed the nature of crime committed by convict -- Conviction affirmed. - - She has clearly deposed to the nature of the crime ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 376 and 511

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vikas Singh

Advocate J.P. Mishra, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 376 and 511
Reported In: 2005(83)DRJ410

Excerpt

penal code, 1860 - sections 376 & 511 -- conviction and sentence -- prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove the case -- statement of prosecutrix had a ring of truth, which clearly deposed the nature of crime committed by convict -- conviction affirmed. - - she has clearly deposed to the nature of the crime committed by the petitioner.r.s. sodhi, j.crl.m.4412/2005:1. allowed subject to just exceptions. application disposed of.crl.rev.p. 321/2005 & crl.m.920/2005:2. this revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the district session judge, delhi in sc no. 68/2004 arising out of fir no. 57/2000, police station, moti nagar, delhi whereby learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 6.3.2005 held the petitioner guilty under section 376 read with section 511 ipc. further by a separate order, sentenced the petitioner to undergo ri for five years and rs.5,000/- in default of payment of which further s.i for three months. 3. it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no rape was committed and none intended. he submits that at the highest the offence committed was that of violating the modesty of a women. he also contends that the prosecutrix statement suffers serious infirmities besides the fact that she was a consenting party. i have heard counsel and gone through the material on record. i find the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and the prosecutrix is examined as pw2. the statement of the prosecutrix has a ring of truth about it. she has clearly deposed to the nature of the crime committed by the petitioner. according to her, she was taken in another room, forced to the ground and her clothes removed against her will. it was this time that she began crying and raised an alarm. her evidence is corroborated by pw4 dr.anita gupta who examined the prosecutrix medically. it further find support from the mother of the prosecutrix pw5. the so called implied consent is a counter productive argument.4. having considered the matter carefully, i find the judgment under challenge suffers from no infirmity. 5. crl.revision petition 321/2005 is dismissed. crl.m.920/2005, also stands dismissed.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

Crl.M.4412/2005:

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 321/2005 & Crl.M.920/2005:

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the District Session Judge, Delhi in SC No. 68/2004 arising out of FIR No. 57/2000, Police Station, Moti Nagar, Delhi whereby learned Judge vide his judgment and order dated 6.3.2005 held the petitioner guilty under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Further by a separate order, sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for five years and Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of which further S.I for three months.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no rape was committed and none intended. He submits that at the highest the offence committed was that of violating the modesty of a women. He also contends that the prosecutrix statement suffers serious infirmities besides the fact that she was a consenting party. I have heard counsel and gone through the material on record. I find the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and the prosecutrix is examined as PW2. The statement of the prosecutrix has a ring of truth about it. She has clearly deposed to the nature of the crime committed by the petitioner. According to her, she was taken in another room, forced to the ground and her clothes removed against her will. It was this time that she began crying and raised an alarm. Her evidence is corroborated by PW4 Dr.Anita Gupta who examined the prosecutrix medically. It further find support from the mother of the prosecutrix PW5. The so called implied consent is a counter productive argument.

4. Having considered the matter carefully, I find the judgment under challenge suffers from no infirmity.

5. Crl.Revision Petition 321/2005 is dismissed. Crl.M.920/2005, also stands dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Vikas Singh vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 376 and 511

Criminal