Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 794 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Rishipal Singh Solanki vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 November, 2021

Dhanjuram Tandan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2024

33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. 33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on 8 record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by In the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2022) 8 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 33 as under:the parties in each case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

In the series of judgments noted hereinabove and particularly in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that once such credible documents including school records are available, there is no necessity of mechanically going in for a medical or an ossification test for determination of age of the victim. Even applying the rigors of section 35 of the Evidence Act, we find that in the present case, the documents produced by PW7 during the course of evidence, including the original admission register, sufficiently demonstrate that the documents clearly passed the test under section 35 of the Evidence Act as the original register maintained in the ordinary course of business while discharging official duty, amounted to a credible material proving the date of birth of the victim as 15.02.2002. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant claiming that the date of birth of the victim was not proved by the prosecution, cannot be accepted and the said contention is rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Puri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 June, 2024

33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. 33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by In the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2022) 8 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 33 as under:the parties in each case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

In the series of judgments noted hereinabove and particularly in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that once such credible documents including school records are available, there is no necessity of mechanically going in for a medical or an ossification test for determination of age of the victim. Even applying the rigors of section 35 of the Evidence Act, we find that in the present case, the documents produced by PW7 during the course of evidence, including the original admission register, sufficiently demonstrate that the documents clearly passed the test under section 35 of the Evidence Act as the original register maintained in the ordinary course of business while discharging official duty, amounted to a credible material proving the date of birth of the victim as 15.02.2002. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant claiming that the date of birth of the victim was not proved by the prosecution, cannot be accepted and the said contention is rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Bhuneshwar Adil vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2024

33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. 33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by In the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2022) 8 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 33 as 8 under:the parties in each case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2025

33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by In the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2022) 8 SCC 602, the Hon'ble 8 Supreme Court observed in para 33 as under:the parties in each case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next