Supreme Court of India

A man led a nine-year-old girl to a hill where he raped, strangled and murdered her. The girl’s sister testified that she saw her sister leave with the man and the mother later recovered the girl’s body from the hill and filed the police report against the accused. He was convicted and sentenced to death under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The man appealed, claiming that he should not be sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence alone. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

A man and woman of different castes married against the wishes of the woman’s brothers. The brothers lodged false criminal complaints against the husband and his family and claimed the woman was mentally unfit, leading to her wrongful committal. The husband’s family sought relief before the High Court, which directed them to appear before a sessions judge to determine possible criminal liability.

In the case Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, the Supreme Court considered the need for uniform marriage registrations across India. The Court observed that non-registration created legal uncertainties, particularly affecting the status of women and children, and facilitated practices such as child marriage and bigamy. The Court held that compulsory registration of all marriages, regardless of the religion of the parties, was necessary in the public interest.

The respondent was convicted of rape by the trial court. On appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction, largely on grounds that the victim’s testimony did not inspire confidence. The State challenged this decision before the Supreme Court of India. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning a rape conviction on a narrow evaluation of evidence without considering the overall circumstances of the case.

While traveling to her house, an 8/9 year-old girl was separated from her father and sister while in her family's fields.  The defendant kidnapped and raped her under a nearby mango tree.  The Supreme Court reversed a High Court's acquittal and found the defendant guilty of rape.  The Supreme Court stated that the conviction could be upheld solely on the victim's testimony, despite her age, if there is no evidence to discredit its trustworthiness.

The Bombay Police Act, 1951 was amended in 2005 with the object of securing public order, morality, dignity of women, and reducing exploitation of women including trafficking of minor girls. Section 33A was inserted that prohibited performance of all types of dance in eating houses or permit rooms or beer bars. Section 33B was inserted that permitted three star hotels and Government associated places of entertainment to hold dance performances.

A police inspector contrived to have the fiance of a young girl locked up, and after doing so, went to her hotel room and raped her.

A woman was kidnapped in broad daylight, taken to a forest, then gang-raped. The defense argued that the woman's injuries were not severe enough for her to have resisted multiple rapists. The Court held that a woman need not present evidence of resistance to support a charge of rape.

A case of sexual assault where the accused was acquitted. The State appealed and the court determined that lack of physical evidence of rape and previous sexual activity on the part of the victim cannot be grounds for acquittal and the court restored the conviction. Also, the testimony need not be corroborated with additional evidence as long as there is an assurance of veracity.

The Supreme Court held that a woman present for a gang rape did not share the common intention to rape and, therefore, could not be convicted of rape. According to §§ 375 and 376 of the Penal Code, only a man can commit rape, making it impossible for a woman to be convicted of a gang rape. This case is important because it raises the issue of how or when to hold women responsible for sexual violence.