S. No.

Cases Name Name of Judge Relevant For

1. Tukaram and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra J. Jaswant Singh • Meaning of Consent

[15 September, 1978] • Led to 1983 Criminal law
amendment
2. State of Punjab V. Gurmit Singh & Ors. J. A. Anand • Effect of rape
[16 January, 1996] • Evidentiary value of rape
victim.
• Previous sexual intercourse is
irrelevant.
• Should be trial of accused not
the victim.
• Duty of court in cross
examination.
3. Uday V. State of Karnataka J. B. Singh • Consent is defined.
[19 February, 2003] • Misconception of fact is
defined (Sec. 90)
4. Sakshi [NGO] V. Union of India • Writ petition for made
[26 May, 2004] definition of rape wider (first
time)
• SC rejected the petition.
5. Priya Patel V. State of MP & Anr. [2006] J. Arijit Pasayat • Held that woman can neither be
held liable for Rape nor Gang
Rape.
Same was also held in State of
Maharashtra V. Hemraj (2009) by J.
Pasayat.
6. Deepak Gulati V. State of Haryana J. B.S. Chauhan • Promise to marriage
[20 May, 2013] • Meaning of consent &
misconception of fact was
defined
7. Lillu V. State of Haryana J. B.S. Chauhan • 2 finger test violates the FR of
[11 April, 2013] women under article 21
• 2 finger test doesn’t come in
medical procedure as in
exception 1 of Section 375.
This case was also quoted in State of
Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai
[2022]
8. Independent thought V. UOI J. Madan B. • Discussed the Marital rape.
[11 October, 2017] Lokur • Matter related to IPC &
POCSO under the light of Art.
14,15 & 21 of the Constitution
• Age of marital rape increased
from 15 to 18 yrs.
9. Mukesh V. NCT of Delhi J. Dipak Misra • Known as Delhi gang rape
[5 May, 2017] • Awarded death sentence but for
murder as in 2012 there was no
such punishment in rape.
• Led to add death sentence in
provision of rape
 10. Maheswar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand J. Navin Sinha • Meaning of consent &
[28 September, 2020] misconception of fact was
defined
• Court said that misconception
has to be with proximity
11. Phool Singh V. State of MP [2021] J. M. R. Shah • Evidentiary value of rape
victim is discussed
• Ratio of Gurmit Singh case was
discussed
12. Attorney General of India V. Satish & Anr. J. Bela M. • Section 7 of POCSO Act was
[18 November, 2021] Trivedi interpreted
• “Touch” was defined and
include direct and indirect
touch
13. Cheerfulson V. State of Meghalaya [2022] • Rubbing over underwear
HC Judgement (fact was of year 2006) Minor girl – penetrate over underwear
– hymen rupture – convicted under
S. 376
14. Asish Wadwani V. NCT of Delhi [2022] • Known as Tinder app case
HC Judgement • Misconception of fact
• Tinder app clearly state that this
app is only for conversation and
enjoyment. It never promotes
marriage on this app.
15. Sunita Pandey V. State of UP J. Shekhar • Held that Woman can be held
[13 February, 2023] HC Judgement Kumar Yadav liable for Gang rape (S.376D)
but cannot be held liable for
rape (S.376)
16. Ranga Raju V. State of Karnataka • Rape of Dead woman was
[30 May, 2023] HC Judgement discussed
• Held that neither Rape nor
Unnatural Offence is possible.
• Suggested to amend S.377 or
add new provisions for
Necrophilia.

DIGITAL RAPE
➢ In English, the word “Digit” means toe, finger, and thumb and when penetrating the same against
someone’s consent, known as Digital Rape. It has nothing to do with cybercrime.
➢ The term “Digital rape” is gender neutral and applicable to all kinds of victims and offenders.
➢ The rape victims are further divided into two categories:
Major victims – offender will be tried under Section 376.
Minor Victims – offender will be tried under section 376 and Section 3(b) of the POCSO act.
Cases:
State v. Pankaj Choudhary, 2011 (Delhi HC)
In this case victim was a 6-year-old girl and the accused was Pankaj Choudhary. According to FIR and victim’s
statement, the accused put his finger into vagina of the victim and after sometime he started to put his finger
into anus of the girl child. The claim of the prosecutor was that the accused should be tried and convicted for
offence of rape. But at that time definition of rape was not wide enough to include penetration of finger into
woman’s vagina or anus amounts to rape. Hence, the court held that the accused should be convicted for
indecent assault given in section 354 of IPC that is outraging the modesty of woman.
Analysis: In this case one can see that if the court would have relied on current definition of rape and section
376 of IPC. If we see the judgement from current provisions of law, the accused should have convicted for
offence of digital rape under section 376 of IPC but instead of this he was convicted for outraging the modesty
of woman under section 354 of IPC.
Akbar Ali v state of UP, (2022) (Allahabad HC)
In this case Akbar Ali was 65- year- old and was accused for digitally raping a three and half year-old girl
child in Salarpur village, Noida. After examining evidences, the court observed that indictment of digital rape
on accused was correct and he used his fingers to penetrate the vagina of the girl child.
Analysis: In the case mentioned above the court based his judgement on definition of rape given by Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 2013. If court would not have relied on definition before 2013 then Akbar Ali would
have been convicted for outraging modesty of woman under section 354 of IPC rather than offence of digital
rape as defined in section 376 of IPC.