MOHAN LAL & ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

MOHAN LAL & ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

The prosecutrix and her mother initially gave consistent accounts implicating the accused, the accused were teachers and the prosecutrix was in their custody thus Sections 376(2)(b) and 376(2)(g) IPC applied; Section 114-A Evidence Act attracted a presumption against consent which the accused did not rebut; despite procedural delays and some hostility by witnesses the evidence sufficed to sustain conviction, and therefore the convictions under Sections 376(2)(g) and 366 IPC and the sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld.

Parties
Appellant: MOHAN LAL & ANR; Respondent: STATE OF PUNJAB
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Gang Rape, Witness Protection, Hostile Witness, Presumption Under Section 114 a Evidence Act, Speedy Trial, Sentencing
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Rape Gang Rape Witness Protection Hostile Witness +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOHAN LAL & ANR

Appellant

STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under Sections 376(2)(g) and 366 IPC was sustainable
  2. 2 Whether Section 376(2)(b) IPC applied because the accused were public servants and the prosecutrix was in their custody
  3. 3 Whether Section 114-A of the Evidence Act applied creating a presumption against consent and whether it was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecutrix and her mother initially gave consistent accounts implicating the accused, the accused were teachers and the prosecutrix was in their custody thus Sections 376(2)(b) and 376(2)(g) IPC applied; Section 114-A Evidence Act attracted a presumption against consent which the accused did not rebut; despite procedural delays and some hostility by witnesses the evidence sufficed to sustain conviction, and therefore the convictions under Sections 376(2)(g) and 366 IPC and the sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Convictions under Sections 376(2)(g) and 366 IPC upheld