Law & Policy
Rape Law in Transition, Part 9: Final Arguments, Sentence and Appeal
30 September 2026 · 21 min read
This is Part 9 of nine of Rape Law in Transition, a study of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 63, 64 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the trial of sexual offences from complaint to appeal. One part is published each day from 27 September to 5 October 2026.
XIV. Final Arguments
Both sides argue the same three elements: the act, the absence of consent, and identity. Each should argue them in the order in which its own evidence is strongest.
The prosecution’s argument
The prosecution’s argument ordinarily proceeds in six stages. It begins with the legal frame: which statute governs each act, which description in section 375 or section 63 is relied on, and whether an aggravated clause has been charged so that the presumption in section 120 is available. It then proves the act and identity, through the prosecutrix’s testimony, the medical findings, the laboratory and DNA reports with every link of the chain established, and any CCTV, call records or hotel records.
The third stage is the absence of consent, proved on the limb pleaded through her testimony and any evidence of fear or coercion, with Chhoteylal and Mango Ram in support. In a false-promise case the prosecution must prove intention at the outset (Anurag Soni), and that proof is best supplied by concrete facts: an engagement to another woman already arranged, a false identity, a condition on the marriage showing that it was never meant to take place (Shivam Upadhyay), or a concealed existing marriage (Vipin Kumar). Corroboration follows, from her statement to the magistrate, an early complaint to her family, the medical findings and her conduct after the event.
The fifth stage anticipates the defence. Delay is met with Gurmit Singh and Gian Chand; the absence of injury with Ranjit Hazarika and Aparna Bhat; minor contradictions with Gurmit Singh; a hostile victim with Selvamani and Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi; a defective investigation with Karnel Singh; and any attack on her character with section 48 and Shailendra Kumar Rai. The argument closes with the statutory minimum and any aggravating circumstance.
The defence’s argument
The defence’s argument begins where the prosecution’s burden is heaviest. The burden remains on the prosecution throughout; there is no presumption without a charge under an aggravated clause (Pankaj Singh), and even then the presumption is narrow (Raja). Any error in the statute charged for the date of the act should be taken at once, above all the invocation of section 69 for conduct before July 2024 (Himank Singh).
The heart of the argument is the prosecutrix’s successive versions, set side by side: the first information, the statement to the police, the statement to the magistrate, the history given to the doctor, and the deposition. Each contradiction must be proved through the investigating officer under section 148, and omissions kept within the categories in Tahsildar Singh. The sterling-witness test is then applied (Rai Sandeep, Santosh Prasad, Nirmal Premkumar, Delinquent Child N), and where the charges are intertwined, so is the principle that her evidence cannot be accepted in part and rejected in part (Paramjit Singh Bedi).
The medical and forensic evidence comes next: findings that rule out her account (Ram Singh, Sunil, Deepak), any break in the chain of custody (Rahul, Kattavellai, Neerajpal), and any material that was available but never collected or sent (Krishan Kumar Malik, Chotkau). Consent is argued from the relationship’s duration, the complainant’s conduct and the chats, if they have been properly proved (Pankaj Singh). In a false-promise case the defence presses the distinction between a broken promise and a false one (Deepak Gulati, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar), relying on the line of authority from Mahesh Damu Khare to Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani. Delay and motive are argued together (Rajesh Kumar, Rajesh Patel), with the trigger for the complaint named, and the lapses of the investigation are laid out: no examination of the accused, no dispatch to the laboratory, no seizure of CCTV, no examination of independent witnesses.
Only then does the defence turn to its fallbacks: a conviction under section 69 BNS, rather than section 64 for conduct after July 2024; under section 376 rather than the child-protection statute where age is not proved; for sexual assault rather than penetrative assault where penetration is not proved (Sunil); and, last of all, mitigation of sentence.
Written submissions
Written submissions should follow the same discipline. The most useful structure is: a synopsis and list of dates; the charges and the statute that governs them; the issues; a table of the evidence, showing what each witness proved and each contradiction, with page and paragraph references to the depositions; the law on each issue, stated through two or three authorities with their paragraph numbers; and a short conclusion and prayer.
It is submitted that the court reads the table of evidence, not a string of twenty citations. For the defence, a single page setting the prosecutrix’s versions side by side is often the most persuasive document in the file. A template is given in Appendix D.
XV. Sentence, Compensation and Appeal
The statute fixes the minimum. Above it, the choice turns on proportionality and the prospect of reform. Appeals in rape cases carry a six-month target, and the victim has a right of appeal of her own.
Sentence
The statutory floors are set out in Appendix A, and courts cannot go beneath them (Ehsaan, para 9). Within the range, the Supreme Court has emphasised proportionality.
In Ehsaan v. State (NCT of Delhi) the Court listed the considerations a sentencing court should weigh, among them the gravity of the offence, the protection of society and the possibility of reformation.1 The appellant had been convicted of gang rape. He was twenty-five when the offence was committed, had no antecedents, and had behaved well through some ten years in custody. The State had placed nothing on record to show that he could not be reformed. The Court reduced his sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to the statutory minimum of twenty years.
In Suptan Marak the Court made a similar reduction under the child-protection statute, on the ground of the appellant’s age and clean record.2
It is submitted that the defence should lead evidence on sentence rather than rely on submission. That evidence covers age, antecedents, family circumstances, conduct in custody and prospects of reform. Ehsaan turned on exactly that record, and on the State’s failure to answer it.
Compensation
Under sections 65 and 70 of the Nyaya Sanhita the fine must be just and reasonable to meet the victim’s medical expenses and rehabilitation, and it is paid to her. Compensation under the State’s scheme is available under section 396 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, even where the offender is not traced. Every hospital must treat the victim free of cost (section 397).
An acquittal does not necessarily end the question of compensation. In Naim Ahamed the Supreme Court acquitted the accused but let stand an order requiring him to pay the complainant five lakh rupees. In Rahul it noted that the victim’s parents remained entitled to compensation under the victim compensation scheme. And in Deelip Singh it directed compensation under Article 142 despite setting aside the conviction.
Appeal
An appeal against a sentence for an offence under sections 64 to 68, 70 or 71 is to be disposed of within six months of filing (section 415(4)). The victim may appeal against an acquittal, against a conviction for a lesser offence, or against inadequate compensation (section 413, proviso), and she may do so under the pseudonym “X”, with her identity kept in a sealed cover (Nipun Saxena). An appellate court that reverses an acquittal must engage with the whole of the evidence, including the final medical opinion and the laboratory report, as Ram Singh shows. It may substitute a conviction under section 376 where a conviction under the child-protection statute fails for want of proof of age (Pynchemalangaki Bareh). And an appeal filed after July 2024 lies under the new Sanhita, even where the trial was conducted under the old Code (Deepu).
XVI. Conclusion
The law of rape in 2026 rests on a small number of settled propositions, surrounded by a larger number of unsettled ones. The settled propositions can be stated in a paragraph. The date of the act determines the offence, while procedure and evidence follow whatever was pending on 1 July 2024. Consent must be free, informed and specific, and neither submission nor silence supplies it. A promise to marry vitiates consent only if it was false when made and was the reason for the woman’s agreement. The victim’s word, if it is of sterling quality, is enough. And medical and scientific evidence is only as good as the record of how it was gathered, just as an electronic record is only as good as its certificate.
The unsettled questions are more numerous. Must a false promise after July 2024 be charged under section 69 rather than section 64? Do the statutory bars on anticipatory bail reach the corresponding offences under the Penal Code? How will the new certificate under section 63 be enforced in the trial courts, and what consequence follows when the new statutory time limits are exceeded? Will the marital exception survive the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?
These are, for the most part, questions of evidence rather than of definition. Most rape trials are won or lost in the record: in the hours after the complaint, in the chain of a sealed packet, and in the gap between what a woman told the police and what she told the court. The advocate who knows that record better than the other side, and who can set each fact against the rule that gives it meaning, will usually prevail, whether for the prosecution or for the defence.
Appendix D. The prosecutrix’s versions compared
A template for the one-page comparison recommended in Part XIV. Each cell records what the version says on the fact in question, with its page or paragraph reference; a blank cell records an omission.
| Fact | FIR | Statement to police | Statement to magistrate | History to doctor | Deposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date and place of the first act | |||||
| Force, threat or promise alleged | |||||
| Whom she told first, and when | |||||
| The relationship before the act | |||||
| Contact after the act | |||||
| Reason given for any delay |
Table of Authorities
Every judgment below was read in its full text on Indian Kanoon between 26 and 27 September 2026, and each name links to that text. The bench is given by the signatures on the judgment where Indian Kanoon reproduces them; otherwise it is taken from the header, and the note says so. An SCC citation is given only where Indian Kanoon displays it; the others should be confirmed from the report before use.
Supreme Court of India
| Authority | Citation | Decided | Bench |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab | 2026 INSC 1054 | 25.09.2026 | Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar |
| Deepak v. State (NCT of Delhi) — The line that every presumption is rebuttable is quoted from the Bombay High Court | 2026 INSC 1008 | 17.09.2026 | Prashant Kumar Mishra, N.V. Anjaria |
| Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya | 2026 INSC 984 | 10.09.2026 | Prashant Kumar Mishra, N.V. Anjaria |
| Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat — FIR under s. 69 BNS alone | 2026 INSC 987 | 07.09.2026 | J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran |
| Kondapaka Sridhar v. State of Telangana — Murder case | 2026 INSC 951 | 03.09.2026 | J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran |
| Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh | 2026 INSC 830 | 11.08.2026 | Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar |
| Suptan Marak v. State of Tripura | SLP (Crl.) 19059/2025 (signed order) | 21.07.2026 | Prashant Kumar Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar |
| Ehsaan v. State (NCT of Delhi) | 2026 INSC 720 | 20.07.2026 | Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih |
| Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State (A&N) — Remand on sentencing only; not an affirmance | 2026 INSC 559 | 26.05.2026 | K.V. Viswanathan, Vijay Bishnoi |
| Pune Bar Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) 599/2026 (order) | 22.05.2026 | Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul M. Pancholi |
| Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh | 2026 INSC 124 | 05.02.2026 | B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan |
| Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra | 2025 INSC 1351 | 24.11.2025 | B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan |
| Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu — Three signatures, though the Indian Kanoon summary lists two | 2025 INSC 845 | 15.07.2025 | Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta |
| Raju @ Umakant v. State of Madhya Pradesh — Read from in-document fragments | 2025 INSC 615 | 01.05.2025 | Sanjay Karol, K.V. Viswanathan |
| Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State (NCT of Delhi) | 2025 INSC 457 | 07.04.2025 | B.V. Nagarathna, S.C. Sharma |
| Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. | 2025 INSC 308 | 03.03.2025 | Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta |
| State of H.P. v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu | 2025 INSC 331 | 20.02.2025 | Surya Kant, N. Kotiswar Singh |
| Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra | 2024 INSC 897 | 26.11.2024 | B.V. Nagarathna, N. Kotiswar Singh |
| Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) — Not the Delhi High Court bail order of the same name | 2024 INSC 879 | 20.11.2024 | B.V. Nagarathna, N. Kotiswar Singh |
| Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan — Sexual assault under POCSO, not rape | 2024 INSC 846 | 07.11.2024 | C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Kumar |
| Saroj v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. — Motor accident claim; the Indian Kanoon header misstates the bench | 2024 INSC 816 | 24.10.2024 | Sanjay Karol, Ujjal Bhuyan |
| Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of M.P. | 2024 INSC 481 | 08.07.2024 | Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan |
| Selvamani v. State | 2024 INSC 393 | 08.05.2024 | B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta |
| Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana | 2024 INSC 254 | 21.03.2024 | Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan |
| Nirmal Premkumar v. State — POCSO harassment, not rape | 2024 INSC 193 | 11.03.2024 | Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan, Sandeep Mehta |
| P. Yuvaprakash v. State | 2023 INSC 626 | 18.07.2023 | S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar |
| Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Crl. A. 257/2023 | 30.01.2023 | Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi |
| Rahul v. State of Delhi | Crl. A. 611/2022 | 07.11.2022 | U.U. Lalit CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi |
| State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai | Crl. A. 1441/2022 | 31.10.2022 | D.Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli |
| Chotkau v. State of U.P. | Crl. A. 361–362/2018 | 28.09.2022 | S. Abdul Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian |
| Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI — Only partly read | M.A. 1849/2021 | 11.07.2022 | S.K. Kaul, M.M. Sundresh (header) |
| Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh — Murder case; cited for DNA only | Crl. A. 248–250/2015 | 20.05.2022 | U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi |
| Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra — Murder case | Crl. A. 632/2022 | 18.04.2022 | N.V. Ramana CJI, Surya Kant, Hima Kohli |
| Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra | M.A. 1852/2019 in Crl. A. 1101/2019 | 11.01.2022 | D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant |
| Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Crl. A. 1520/2021 | 01.12.2021 | M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna |
| Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh | AIR 2021 SC 1492 | 18.03.2021 | A.M. Khanwilkar, S. Ravindra Bhat |
| Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. | AIR 2021 SC 1405 | 01.03.2021 | D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah |
| Ganesan v. State — POCSO sexual assault | AIRONLINE 2020 SC 777 | 14.10.2020 | Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah |
| Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal — Indian Kanoon paragraph numbering | AIR 2020 SC 4908 | 14.07.2020 | R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian |
| Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar | AIR 2020 SC 985 | 14.02.2020 | Ashok Bhushan, M.R. Shah |
| Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal | (2020) 2 SCC 474 | 20.11.2019 | Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Deepak Gupta |
| Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra | (2019) 9 SCC 608 | 21.08.2019 | D.Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee |
| Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh | (2019) 13 SCC 1 | 09.04.2019 | L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah |
| P. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Pattu Rajan) — Murder case | (2019) 4 SCC 771 | 29.03.2019 | N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee |
| State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan | (2019) 5 SCC 688 | 05.03.2019 | A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah |
| Nipun Saxena v. Union of India | (2019) 2 SCC 703 | 11.12.2018 | Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta |
| Mahender Chawla v. Union of India — Two signatures; the header adds a third judge | (2019) 14 SCC 615 | 05.12.2018 | A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer |
| Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra | AIR 2019 SC 327 | 22.11.2018 | A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer |
| Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat | AIR 2018 SC 4760 | 28.09.2018 | Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph |
| Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh | Crl. A. 1395/2015 | 23.08.2018 | Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph |
| Sham Singh v. State of Haryana | AIR 2018 SC 3976 | 21.08.2018 | Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana (header) |
| Independent Thought v. Union of India — Lokur J’s opinion verified; Gupta J’s conclusion not read | AIR 2017 SC 4904 | 11.10.2017 | Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta |
| Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana | AIR 2017 SC 3441 | 18.07.2017 | J.S. Khehar CJI, L. Nageswara Rao, Navin Sinha |
| Raja v. State of Karnataka | (2016) 10 SCC 506 | 04.10.2016 | Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy |
| Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer | (2014) 10 SCC 473 | 18.09.2014 | R.M. Lodha CJI, Kurian Joseph, R.F. Nariman |
| Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra | Crl. A. 1419–1420/2012 | 20.02.2014 | K.S. Radhakrishnan, Vikramajit Sen |
| Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana | (2013) 7 SCC 675 | 20.05.2013 | B.S. Chauhan, Dipak Misra |
| Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana | (2013) 14 SCC 643 | April 2013 | B.S. Chauhan, F.M.I. Kalifulla |
| Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand — Para 11 deals with the delayed medical examination | (2013) 3 SCC 791 | 15.03.2013 | Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, V. Gopala Gowda |
| R. Shaji v. State of Kerala — Murder case | (2013) 14 SCC 266 | 04.02.2013 | B.S. Chauhan, V. Gopala Gowda |
| Gian Singh v. State of Punjab | (2012) 10 SCC 303 | 24.09.2012 | R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave, S.J. Mukhopadhaya |
| Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) | (2012) 8 SCC 21 | 07.08.2012 | Swatanter Kumar, F.M.I. Kalifulla |
| Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana | (2011) 7 SCC 130 | 04.07.2011 | Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma |
| State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal | (2011) 2 SCC 550 | 14.01.2011 | Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha |
| Sajjan Kumar v. CBI | Crl. A. arising from SLP (Crl.) 6374/2010 | 20.09.2010 | P. Sathasivam, Anil R. Dave |
| Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi) | (2009) 15 SCC 566 | 26.08.2009 | Harjit Singh Bedi, Aftab Alam (header) |
| Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar | (2005) 1 SCC 88 | 03.11.2004 | P. Venkatarama Reddi, P.P. Naolekar (header) |
| Sakshi v. Union of India — One signature on Indian Kanoon | (2004) 5 SCC 518 | 26.05.2004 | Not confirmed |
| Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa | (2003) 8 SCC 590 | 27.10.2003 | Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat (header) |
| Uday v. State of Karnataka | (2003) 4 SCC 46 | 19.02.2003 | N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh |
| State of H.P. v. Gian Chand | (2001) 6 SCC 71 | 01.05.2001 | Three judges (header) |
| State of H.P. v. Mango Ram | (2000) 7 SCC 224 | 24.08.2000 | Three judges, per Chhoteylal |
| Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam — Indian Kanoon’s date; not confirmed against the report | (1998) 8 SCC 635 | 28.02.1996 (IK) | Not verifiable on Indian Kanoon |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh | (1996) 2 SCC 384 | 16.01.1996 | A.S. Anand, Saghir S. Ahmad (header) |
| Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. | (1995) 5 SCC 518 | 11.08.1995 | A.M. Ahmadi CJI, S.C. Sen (header) |
| Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit | 1988 Supp SCC 604 | 02.08.1988 | K.N. Singh, E.S. Venkataramiah (header) |
| T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe | (1983) 1 SCC 177 | 07.12.1982 | A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah, R.B. Misra (header) |
| Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. | AIR 1959 SC 1012 | 05.05.1959 | Six judges; majority of four |
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
| Authority | Citation | Decided | Bench |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alok Ranjan v. State of U.P. | 2026:AHC:158011 | 30.07.2026 | Vivek Kumar Singh J |
| Delinquent Child N v. State of U.P. | 2026:AHC-LKO:51816 | 29.07.2026 | Subhash Vidyarthi J (Lucknow) |
| Ritesh Soni v. State of U.P. — No view on merits | 2026:AHC:155759 | 28.07.2026 | Vivek Kumar Singh J |
| Neerajpal v. State of U.P. | Crl. A. 372/2018 | 23.07.2026 | Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Rajeev Bharti JJ (Lucknow, DB) |
| Sunil v. State of U.P. — No paragraph numbers on Indian Kanoon | Crl. A. 4676/2022 | 17.07.2026 | Salil Kumar Rai, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi JJ (DB) |
| Saurabh Pal Singh v. State of U.P. | Crl. A. 769/2025 and 2424/2026 | 06.07.2026 | Santosh Rai J |
| Lal Babu v. State of U.P. — Conviction under s. 366; general rule | 2026:AHC-LKO:43052 | 02.07.2026 | Subhash Vidyarthi J (Lucknow) |
| Shivam Upadhyay v. State of U.P. | 2026:AHC-LKO:23816 | 06.04.2026 | Manish Kumar J (Lucknow) |
| Himank Singh @ Vinay v. State of U.P. | Appl. u/s 482 No. 41284/2023 | 10.03.2026 | Tej Pratap Tiwari J |
| Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. | Appl. u/s 528 BNSS No. 45399/2025 | 23.02.2026 | Avnish Saxena J |
| Sayyed Sameer v. State of U.P. — Bail appeal | 2025:AHC-LKO:64645 | 16.10.2025 | Pramod Kumar Srivastava J (Lucknow) |
| Udayveer Singh v. State of U.P. — Bail order | 2025:AHC:12805 | 24.01.2025 | Vivek Varma J |
| Deepu v. State of U.P. | Crl. Misc. W.P. 12287/2024 | 06.08.2024 | Vivek Kumar Birla, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal JJ (DB) |
Other High Courts (persuasive)
| Authority | Citation | Decided | Bench |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hanmantappa v. State of Karnataka | 2026:KHC- D:14301 | 31.08.2026 | Anant Ramanath Hegde J (Karnataka) |
| Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh v. State — Bail order; cited as adopted in Deelip Singh | AIR 1958 P&H 123 | 12.08.1957 | Not confirmed (Punjab) |
Statutes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 · Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 · Indian Penal Code, 1860
The series
- Part 1: Which Law Governs
- Part 2: The Anatomy of the Offence
- Part 3: Consent and Will
- Part 4: The False Promise of Marriage
- Part 5: Investigation and Delay
- Part 6: Medical and DNA Evidence
- Part 7: Electronic Evidence and Bail
- Part 8: Charge, Quashing and the Trial
- Part 9: Final Arguments, Sentence and Appeal (this part)
Authored by Eshan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.