section 366 IPC

_:- Section 366 IPC

 Ingredients of offence - Held, offence u/s 366 IPC requires three principal ingredients (I) kidnapping or abduction to any women (II) such kidnapping or abduction must be (i) with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will; or (ii) in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illegal intercourse, or (iii) by means of criminal intimidation or otherwise by enticing any women to any place with intent that she may be or knowing that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse - It held immaterial whether the women kidnapped is married women or not.[Para 18]*_


_*Ashok Alias Gore Lal v/s  State of U.P JA 3490/16 [ Suresh JJ ]*_

_*[ ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ]*_

*______________________
Legalities law firm
8851250058
Location: Shershah Road, Justice SB Marg, Delhi High Court, India Gate, New Delhi, Delhi 110503, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) Section 13(1)(ia) – Maintenance – Undoubtedly

Image
the h usband is earning well while being posted in Singapore, however, the cost of living in Singapore is higher – The husband is already paying a rent @ 3200 Singapore Dollars, per month and income tax @ 1583 Singapore Dollars – Thus, the net income of the respondent gets substantially reduced – Keeping in view the status of the parties and their income, it is considered appropriate to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, per month, to the wife towards interim  maintenanc e allowance from the date  of the h usband is earning well while being posted in Singapore, however, the cost of living in Singapore is higher – The husband is already paying a rent @ 3200 Singapore Dollars, per month and income tax @ 1583 Singapore Dollars – Thus, the net income of the respondent gets substantially reduced – Keeping in view the status of the parties and their income, it is considered appropriate to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, per month, to the wife ...
Read more

क्या पति पर धारा 377 आईपीसी के तहत मुकदमा चलाया जा सकता है, जब धारा 375 आईपीसी वैवाहिक यौन संबंध से छूट देती है? दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट विचार करेगा

Image
दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट में दायर एक याचिका में यह घोषणा करने की मांग की गई है कि भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 377 के तहत एक पति पर पत्नी के साथ अप्राकृतिक यौन संबंध के अपराध के लिए मुकदमा नहीं चलाया जा सकता है, जब धारा 375 का अपवाद 2 वैवाहिक यौन संबंध को बलात्कार के अपराध से छूट देता है। हाईकोर्ट ने उक्त याचिका को याचिकाओं के एक बैच से अलग कर दिया है, जिनमें वैवाहिक बलात्कार के अपराधीकरण की मांग की गई थी। जस्टिस राजीव शकधर और जस्टिस सी हरिशंकर की खंडपीठ ने कई दिनों तक चली लंबी सुनवाई के बाद संहिता की धारा 375 के अपवाद के खिलाफ दायर याचिकाओं पर अपना फैसला सुरक्षित रख लिया है। याचिका को याचिकाओं के उक्त बैच से अलग करते हुए कोर्ट ने कहा कि वह 11 मार्च को इसे सूचीबद्ध करते हुए मामले की अलग से सुनवाई करेगा। "चूंकि उपर्युक्त याचिका में उठाया गया मुद्दा रिट याचिकाओं के समूह यानी WP (C) Nos. 284/2015, 5858/2017, 6024/2017 और WP (Crl.) No.964/2017 से गुणात्मक रूप से अलग है। उस याचिका को इस बैच से अलग करने का आदेश दिया जाता है। इस रिट याचिका पर अलग से सुनवाई की जाएगी।" एडवोकेट अमित कुमार की ओर से...
Read more

Section 374(2) read with Section 383 CRPC POCSO ACT Sections 5(m) and 6

Image
_*• Section 374(2) read with Section 383 CRPC  POCSO ACT Sections 5(m) and 6  Sexual assault with minor Testimonies of victim and mother Material improvements in statements of child victim and her mother Testimony of child victim that she was told by her mother about what to say in Court MLC records that child victim's hymen found partially torn but neither any injury nor any blood was noticed either in vagina or on her clothes Child victim not changed her clothes and no opinion given as to whether partial hymen tear was fresh or old Moreover, FSL report shows that no blood was detected on her clothes - Therefore, order of conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 21 and 22]*_ _*Altaf vs State CRL-A 474/20 03/12/20 [ MANOJ KUMAR JJ ]*_ Advocate & solicitor _*[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]*_ Advocate and solicitor  8851250058
Read more