Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHANU VALVE versus STATE

Decided
18 April 2011
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 769 · 2011 INSC 312

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned.

p. 769, margin F

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.

p. 769, margin G

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.

p. 770, margin A

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

p. 770, margin B

years after his wife left him, and has produced a child from her. 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.

p. 770, margin B

The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. N.J. Special Leave Petition dismissed.

p. 770, margin C