Topic

rape case

4 articlesLatest July 2026
Section 438 CrPC | False Implication in Rape Case Due to Prior Disputes & Lack of Medical Evidence Justifies Anticipatory Bail : Bombay HC
Case Law Analysis
|Bombay High Court

Section 438 CrPC | False Implication in Rape Case Due to Prior Disputes & Lack of Medical Evidence Justifies Anticipatory Bail : Bombay HC

Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail in a rape case, holding that prior serious disputes between parties and absence of corroborative medical evidence raise strong doubts about false implication. The ruling underscores the need for prima facie evidence beyond mere allegations in sexual offence cases under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Section 32 Evidence Act | Uncorroborated Police-Recorded Dying Declaration Without Medical Evidence Fails to Sustain Conviction: Allahabad HC
Case Law Analysis
|Allahabad High Court

Section 32 Evidence Act | Uncorroborated Police-Recorded Dying Declaration Without Medical Evidence Fails to Sustain Conviction: Allahabad HC

Allahabad High Court acquitted an accused in a rape case, ruling that a dying declaration recorded by police, lacking medical corroboration and marred by unexplained delays, cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the necessity of independent medical evidence and timely recording to validate dying declarations under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.

Section 391 CrPC | Due Diligence Mandatory for Additional Evidence in Rape Appeals; MP HC Rejects 'Love Story' Defence : MP HC
Case Law Analysis
|Madhya Pradesh High Court

Section 391 CrPC | Due Diligence Mandatory for Additional Evidence in Rape Appeals; MP HC Rejects 'Love Story' Defence : MP HC

Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses an appeal seeking additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC, ruling that the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in presenting mobile recordings during trial. The court held that belated claims of a 'love story' with the prosecutrix do not justify admitting evidence at the appellate stage, reinforcing that Section 391 is not a tool for remedying procedural lapses.