Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Shakeel Alias Pappoo And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 27 July, 1999

40]. Ld. Defence Counsel Strenuously ... vs Prakash Yadav @ Krishna' Page No.26 Of 32 on 28 April, 2018

Similarly, in case of "Shakeel @ Pappu vs. State of U.P." (supra), ossification test report of the prosecutrix suggested her age as 17 years with margin of 1 year i.e. 18 years. The Hon'ble Allahabad Court  while   relying   upon   the   various   judgments   of   Hon'ble   High Courts of Bombay and Madras and of Honb'le Apex Court, observed that opinion of age based on ossification is liable to an error of 2 years either way, if the opinion is to be exact it should be expressed in the form of upper and lower limit. Thus if a doctor gives an opinion based on ossification that in his opinion the age of Q is 15 years that opinion is liable to an error of 2 years up or down and the exact age will be between   13   and   17.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Vikas Yadav on 11 April, 2018

Similarly, in case of "Shakeel @ Pappu vs. State of U.P. (supra), ossification test report of the prosecutrix suggested her age as 17 years with margin of 1 year i.e. 18 years. The Hon'ble Allahabad CIS­SC No. 6792/16                     'State vs. Vikas Yadav'    Page 37 of 44 Court  while   relying   upon   the   various   judgments   of   Hon'ble   High Courts of Bombay and Madaras and of Honb'le Apex Court , observed that opinion of age based on ossification is liable to an error of 2 years either way, if the opinion is to be exact it should be expressed in the form of upper and lower limit. Thus if a doctor gives an opinion based on ossification that in his opinion the age of Q is 15 years that opinion is liable to an error of 2 years up or down and the exact age will be between   13   and   17.   With   these   observations,   it   was   held   by   the Hon'ble Allahabad Court that in the case in hand, on a margin of one year given at the age of 17 years estimated by the doctor it can safely be held that the age of prosecutrix on the date of occurrence was about 18 years.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Krishan Pal Singh S/O Netra Pal ... on 20 April, 2010

It was further submitted that initially charge-sheet was filed only against accused Krishan Lal and charge was framed u/s 363/366/376 IPC, and thereafter prosecutrix named accused Sangam also in her statement and as such accused Sangam was summoned and charge was framed against him. No charge for offence u/s 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons. No charge u/s 376(2)(g) is made out. Reliance was placed on S.C. No. 36/08 Page 8/43 ­9­ Mohammad Said Khan vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1985 (1) Crimes 157; and Shakeel @ Pappoo and another vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 153.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1