|follow us on twitter||Follow @intolegalworld|
Where in a rape case from the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused is not named in the FIR and he is living at a place miles away from the house of the victim, and he is not arrested from the spot in the presence of the witness and the accused was not known to the witness previously, it cannot be said that the matter regarding the identification of the accused was beyond any doubt especially in the view of the persistent stand taken by the victim that she remained unconscious for five days from her alleged kidnapping. In such a fact situation of test of identification parade is needed to fix the identity of the culprit.FIT
The girl of 13 years of age was raped at a time when there was light at the place of occurrence. The girl had recognised the man who had committed ghastly crime upon her. In the circumstances it could be said that identity of the accused stood amply established. The conviction was held proper. The vaginal discharge and blood was present on clothes worn by victim and the accused clothes when chemically examined indicated the fact that rape was committed. The accused was convicted.
The girl was lifted from her house taken to field where she was raped and was found in totally naked condition in field on following day morning. The conviction of the accused was held proper. Accused raped niece of his wife but keeping in mind the fact that she was living in family since her childhood the sentence was reduced to one year with a fine of Rs 1000. In the Supreme Court case accused teacher committed rape on his own student who became pregnant at the age of 14 years only. Victim’s mother was not literate and victim had just passed class there in third attempt. The Court held that to examine their evidence with microscope approach would be an insult to the justice oriented judicial system. Conviction on this ground held proper. The accused was charged to have raped the girl of eleven years and identification parade to fix the identity of accused was held but certain infirmities in holding the test were found by the magistrate as appropriate dummies falling within the age group of accused and having similar physique could not be procured. Here identity of accused as offender could not be established. It was held that the accused was liable to be acquitted.
 Md. Saleem v. State (Delhi Administration), 1992 CrLJ 1959 (Del)
 State of M.P. v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1992 SC 1413
 S. Jai Singh v. State, 2004 CrLJ 3598 (Mad)
 Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2004 CrLJ 3501 (Ori)
 State v. Mohan Shankarrao Janrao, 2004 CrLJ 3998
 State v. Shree Kant Shekari, 2004 CrLJ 4232
 State of Gujrat v. Mahmad alias Munno Usmanbbhai Chauhan, 1996 CrLJ 3400 (Guj)