Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 346 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs State Of U.P on 12 May, 2006

Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2018

The judgment in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) may have has lost his primacy in light of the legislative intervention made upon enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and now the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the rules framed under those Acts and also in equal measure, on account of the later pronouncement by the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs State Of West Bengal (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - S D Singh - Full Document

Mohammad Shahjad Amir Hasan Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 March, 2026

40. It is relevant to note that the judgements relied upon by the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh Gorkhi versus State of U.P. (supra) and P. Yuvaprakash vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra), were both cases where the Supreme Court, after applying the aforesaid tests, on facts found that the concerned person was not proved to be a minor. The conclusions rendered therein were based on the facts of those individual cases, but the tests applied therein, when applied to the facts of the present case, demonstrate that the prosecution was able to prove that the victim in the present case was indeed a minor at the time when the incidents took place, as her date of birth was proved to be 15.02.2002, on the basis of credible 20/29 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:44:29 ::: APEAL_28_21.doc material. Hence, the elaborate submissions made on behalf of the appellant on the question of the victim being a minor or otherwise, are rejected. The case of the prosecution is accepted that the date of birth of the victim was 15.02.2002, thereby demonstrating that at the time when the incidents took place, she was indeed a minor.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Xyz vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 March, 2026

40. It is relevant to note that the judgements relied upon by the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh Gorkhi versus State of U.P. (supra) and P. Yuvaprakash vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra), were both cases where the Supreme Court, after applying the aforesaid tests, on facts found that the concerned person was not proved to be a minor. The conclusions rendered therein were based on the facts of those individual cases, but the tests applied therein, when applied to the facts of the present case, demonstrate that the prosecution was able to prove that the victim in the present case was indeed a minor at the time when the incidents took place, as her date of birth was proved to be 15.02.2002, on the basis of credible 20/29 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:44:30 ::: APEAL_28_21.doc material. Hence, the elaborate submissions made on behalf of the appellant on the question of the victim being a minor or otherwise, are rejected. The case of the prosecution is accepted that the date of birth of the victim was 15.02.2002, thereby demonstrating that at the time when the incidents took place, she was indeed a minor.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Hemant Kumar Deshlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2026

"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Shravan Kumar Sori vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 January, 2024

"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various -11- purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Nand Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 February, 2024

"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis -11- of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raja @ Raj @ Shailesh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 June, 2024

"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the victim although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Darasay Rajwade vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2024

"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Devan Singh @ Guddu Agariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2024

"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the victim although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Khande vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 December, 2023

"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he 11 was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next