Refusal Of Alleged Rape Victim To Allow Medical Examination Raises Negative Inference Against Her

 The Supreme Court has reiterated that adverse inference can be drawn against a woman, who is alleged to be a victim in a rape case, if she refuses medical examination.

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that non- allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them," the Court observed, referring to Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.

The FIR in the case was lodged by the father of the alleged victim in 2007. It was alleged that the accused came to their house, when the parents were away, and committed forceful sexual intercourse with their daughter.

The prosecutrix was medically examined at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, where she was found to be of unsound mind as she did not cooperate in her medical examination. As the factum of sexual intercourse could not be ascertained, the prosecutrix was further referred to the RPMC Hospital at Tanda (Dharamshala) for the opinion of their Gynecologist and Psychiatrist. However, the father of the prosecutrix did not allow for any medical examination to happen.

In this case, the mother of the girl turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. The father also made evasive statements. The Court also noted that the prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events.

 The High Court, while discussing the prosecutrix's testimony, came to the invariable conclusion that she was not mentally unsound – given that she was able to clearly comprehend the question and answer during the cross-examination.

The Court also cited the limited jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal.

Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97

 The Supreme Court recently observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property.

The Court clarified that while applications under Section 47 of the CPC and Order 21 Rule 97 address distinct proceedings— with the former concerning execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree and the latter dealing with resistance or obstruction to possession, including by third parties— an application under Section 47 filed by a judgment debtor or an aggrieved third party will be treated as one under Order 21 Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property. In such cases, the executing court must adjudicate these questions under Order 21 Rule 101.

The Court reasoned that since the application under Section 47 CPC raises objections concerning rights in the property, which the executing court cannot determine after the decree has been passed, reclassifying it as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC would empower the executing court to adjudicate such issues. This approach aligns with the legal principle that the executing court cannot question the validity of the decree or go beyond its scope.

“In such circumstances referred to above the application of the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 47 of the CPC bearing R.E.A. No. 163 of 2011 was in substance an application for determination of their possessory rights under Order XXI Rule 97.”, 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(3) - for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, due regard has to be given to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the CPC.

 A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9 and 36 - Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the Arbitral proceedings, during the Arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act - All that the Court is required to see is, whether the applicant for interim measure has a good prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief as prayed for being granted and whether the applicant has approached the court with reasonable expedition.

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(2) - Once an application under subsection (2) of Section 36 is filed for stay of operation of the arbitral award, the Court might subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award, for reasons to be recorded in writing - Court is empowered to impose such conditions as it might deem fit and may grant stay of operation of the award subject to furnishing of security covering entire amount of the award including interest.

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(3) - While considering an application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, due regard has to be given to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the CPC.

(IPC) – S 302/34 - Murder - Common intention- HELD the evidence available on record was not looked into as the witnesses had already been exposed to the accused in the police station - After all, the test identification parade is only a part of an investigation, and therefore, nothing more can be attached to it - Acquittal

 

Recovery having not been proved in the manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant - Prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant has committed the offence

 

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 – Murder - Even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution -

 sclaw.in

Considering the seriousness of the offences alleged, this was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, when according to the State, recoveries are yet to be made and the respondent has not extended full cooperation in the investigation - Appeal allowed.

 sclaw.in

Specific performance -There is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance - While readiness means the capacity of the Plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the Plaintiff.

 sclaw.in

IBC – when admission is opposed on the ground of existence of an award or a decree in favour of the Corporate Debtor, and the Awarded/decretal amount exceeds the amount of the debt, the Adjudicating Authority would have to exercise its discretion under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to keep the admission of the application of the Financial Creditor in abeyance

 

ibcode.ind.in 

HELD all the three appellants are in jail and have undergone several years of incarceration. We accordingly award the sentence for the period already undergone by all the three appellants.

 sclaw.in