Bhanu Valve Vs. State
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011
(CRLMP. No(s). 7901/2011)
(CRLMP. No(s). 7901/2011)
Petitioner: Bhanu Valve
Respondent: State
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011
(CRLMP. No(s). 7901/2011)
(CRLMP. No(s). 7901/2011)
Judges: Markandey Katju & Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 18, 2011
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Penal Code, 1860
Section 376 – Appellant raping his own daughter for 5 years and having a child from her – High Court upholding the conviction. Held this kind of unheard behaviour cannot be condoned. No reason to disbelieve the evidence of daughter. Appeal dismissed. (Para 5)
Penal Code, 1860
Section 376 – Appellant raping his own daughter for 5 years and having a child from her – High Court upholding the conviction. Held this kind of unheard behaviour cannot be condoned. No reason to disbelieve the evidence of daughter. Appeal dismissed. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27.07.2010 by which the High Court has upheld the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court.
4. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment, and hence we are not repeating the same here. The High Court and the trial court have discussed the evidence in great detail, and we entirely agree with the view they have taken.
5. This is one of the most barbaric and heinous cases we have come across in our judicial career. The petitioner has been found guilty of raping his own daughter regularly for five years after his wife left him, and has produced a child from her. This kind of unheard behaviour cannot be condoned by any means. The daughter-PW-1 (prosecutrix) has given her evidence in this case, and we see no reason to disbelieve her.
6. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27.07.2010 by which the High Court has upheld the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court.
4. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment, and hence we are not repeating the same here. The High Court and the trial court have discussed the evidence in great detail, and we entirely agree with the view they have taken.
5. This is one of the most barbaric and heinous cases we have come across in our judicial career. The petitioner has been found guilty of raping his own daughter regularly for five years after his wife left him, and has produced a child from her. This kind of unheard behaviour cannot be condoned by any means. The daughter-PW-1 (prosecutrix) has given her evidence in this case, and we see no reason to disbelieve her.
6. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
