KRISHAN LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA

KRISHAN LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA

The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to demand substantial corroboration of the prosecutrix's evidence in every case, and that the facts and circumstances here, including physical injuries and prompt complaint, support conviction. The petitioner's arguments based on a blanket need for corroboration were rejected; the special leave petition was dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Krishan Lal; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 April 1980
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Supreme Court Dismissal of Special Leave Petition
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Corroboration of Testimony, Evidentiary Standards
Criminal Law Rape Corroboration of Testimony Evidentiary Standards

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishan Lal

Petitioner

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Supreme Court Dismissal of Special Leave Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction under section 376 IPC can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to demand substantial corroboration of the prosecutrix's evidence in every case, and that the facts and circumstances here, including physical injuries and prompt complaint, support conviction. The petitioner's arguments based on a blanket need for corroboration were rejected; the special leave petition was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.