Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchSLP dismissed; conviction upheld.

BHANU VALVE v. STATE

Case / Petition Number:Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011
Neutral Citation:(2011) 5 SCR 769

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Markandey Katju
  • Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date
2011-04-18
Court Decision / Holding
Special Leave Petition dismissed; conviction upheld; High Court and trial court judgments affirmed.
Final Disposition
SLP dismissed; conviction upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • BHANU VALVE

Respondents

  • State

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Garvesh Kabra

Case Synopsis & Summary

Bhanu Valve v. State concerns a criminal appeal arising from a conviction for rape of a daughter. The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011 was heard by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2009, had upheld the trial court’s verdict. The Court does not repeat the detailed factual discussion, as the impugned judgment already sets out the sequence of events. The prosecution’s evidence is held credible, with PW-1, the prosecutrix, providing a consistent account of the acts committed by her father over five years after the mother left the family. The Supreme Court notes that the acts were barbaric and heinous, and cannot be condoned. It states there is no reason to disbelieve the daughter’s testimony, and that the trial and appellate courts’ evaluation of the evidence is sound. In upholding the petition, the Court would have to find legal or evidentiary errors; instead, it affirms the convictions and dismisses the SLP. The order ends with the Special Leave Petition dismissed, thereby preserving the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s stance on protecting children and punishing sexual violence within the family.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not stated in provided text.

Contentions of Respondents

Not stated in provided text.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against BHANU VALVE v. STATE and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A 8 ## [2011) 5 S.C.R. 769 ## BHANU VALVE _v._ ## STATE > (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011) ## APRIL 18, 2011 ## [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] " - - _Penal Code, 1860_ s. _·376 Accused raped his own daughter regularly for five years after his wife left him, and_ - _fathered_ a _child from his daughter Conviction by courts_ C - _below On appeal, held: There is no reason to disbelieve the_ - _evidence of the daughter_ as _also the courts. below The act of the accused_ was _most 'barbaric and heinous, and cannot_ - _be condoned by any means Thus, order passed by the courts below upheld._ D D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of E 2009. Garvesh Kabra for the Petitioner. The following order of the Court was delivered ## ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. G This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Barnaby High Court dated 27.07.2010 by which the High Court has upheld the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court. 769 H 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R. A 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. B > 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. C 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. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. N.J. Special Leave Petition dismissed.