LANDMARK CASE
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
(1996) 2 SCC 384 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal law
At a glance
- Citation: (1996) 2 SCC 384
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Criminal law
- In one line: The conviction was restored. A survivor's testimony can be enough without corroboration, and trials should be held in camera with sensitivity.
1 Facts
A schoolgirl was abducted and raped, but the trial court acquitted citing delays and minor inconsistencies.
2 Issue
How should courts assess a rape survivor's testimony?
3 What the court decided
The conviction was restored. A survivor's testimony can be enough without corroboration, and trials should be held in camera with sensitivity.
4 Why it matters
It set standards for sensitive handling of sexual offence trials.
5 Think about it
Why are minor inconsistencies not fatal to a survivor's evidence?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Criminal law
- Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1
- Basdev v. State of PEPSU AIR 1956 SC 488
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← State of Punjab v. Dalbir SinghState of Rajasthan v. Union of India →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.