18 Jan 1990
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (1990) 1 SCC 550; AIR 1990 SC 658
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1990-0002Nagpur, MaharashtraJudgment 18 January 1990
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
The Supreme Court allowed the State appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court acquittal and restored the trial court's conviction of Sub-Inspector for raping newly-wed the complainant twice after isolating her from her husband on the night of 22 August 1981. The Court held a prosecutrix is a victim, not an accomplice, needing no corroboration, and refused to reduce the 5-year RI sentence, observing that punishment for rape by a person in uniform must be exemplary. The respondent was ordered to surrender forthwith and serve out the sentence. The trial acquittal under Section 342 was not disturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 18 January 1990, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: A.M. Ahmadi, M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.) recorded the conviction of the Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (Sub-Inspector).
- Register number
- MH 31 CW 0001
- Case reference
- (1990) 1 SCC 550; AIR 1990 SC 658
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: A.M. Ahmadi, M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.), 18 January 1990
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (Sub-Inspector)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court acquitting the respondent and restore the order of conviction and sentence passed on the respondent by the trial court.”
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction entered by Supreme Court. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 5 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 18 January 1990 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
Custodial torturePrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court acquitting the respondent and restore the order of conviction and sentence passed on the respondent by the trial court.”
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.