Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Consent For Sexual Intercourse On Promise To Marry A Subject Matter Of Evidence, Can't Adjudicate In A 482 Plea
12 Oct 2019 12:39 am
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday reiterated that the court does not have the jurisdiction to go into issues relating to appreciation of evidence under an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC and that whether the accused had the intention to marry the victim based on which the victim gave her consent for sexual intercourse is a subject matter of evidence.
The Appellant, Kamal Pal had been alleged to have enticed the victim-complainant away and to have administered intoxicating substance to her, post which he raped her and gave assurance to marry her. Subsequently, when the victim asked him to marry her, he refused to do so and instead committed assault on her.
The Appellant approached the high court through Advocates Santosh Yadav and Vimal Chandra Pathak, seeking directions to quash the charge sheet filed against him under Sections 366, 376, 328, 323, 506, 406 of IPC and the consequent cognizance order passed by the CJM along with entire proceedings of the case.
He claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case because the victim wanted to marry him. He denied the allegations of kidnapping, rape as well as assault and pointed out that no injury was found on the person of the victim.
