Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 236 (2.19 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil vs State Of Haryana on 4 December, 2009

Ayyaz Mohammad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026

In light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that in the case of Sunil vs. State of Haryana (supra), Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 27-01-2026 14:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082 13 CRA-9382-2022 was not taken into consideration; therefore, that judgment is irrelevant in the present context.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Narayana S/O Hanumanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2014

In the decision reported in 2009 AIR SCW 7656 (in the case of Sunil Vs. State of Haryana), the Supreme Court has held that prosecution has failed to produce admission form of school and school leaving certificate produced was obtained few days after incident, the father of victim had 10 given age of victim approximately and conviction of accused on such evidence would be improper.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Ananda - Full Document

Aslam Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2019

APPEAL-1513-2018-APPA-1653-2018-J.doc 6 On this backdrop, it is in evidence of the victim female child/PW3 that in the year 2014, she was studying in 8 th Standard and she disclosed her age as 14 years, when she entered in the witness box on 6th August 2015. She was unable to tell her date of birth. The prosecution, however, has produced Birth Certificate of the victim female child/PW3 issued by Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar High School run by Pune Municipal Corporation and as per this certificate, the victim female child/PW3 was born on 1 st June 2000. Evidence of the victim female child/PW3 that she was 14 years of age as on 6th August 2015 is not shattered in her cross- examination. Thus, oral evidence of PW1 Murlidhar regarding birth of the victim female child/PW3 in June 2000 is gaining corroboration from version of the victim female child/PW3 as well the documentary evidence in the form of Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal School. Incident in question took place on18 th November 2014 and as such, on that day, the victim female child/PW3 was certainly below 18 years of age. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied on the judgment in the avk 9 ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 02:35:05 ::: APPEAL-1513-2018-APPA-1653-2018-J.doc matter of Sunil vs. State of Haryana (supra). In that case, PW1 Dr.Verma had clinically examined the prosecutrix and found her secondary sex characters well developed. Hence, he referred the prosecutrix for verification to the Dental Surgeon as well as the Radiologist, but the prosecution failed to get the prosecutrix examined from the Dental Surgeon and Radiologist, despite reference by Dr.Sadhna Verma. This was considered to be a serious flaw by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said matter. It is held therein that in the absence of primary evidence, reports of the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist would have helped the court in arriving at the conclusion regarding the age of the prosecutrix. Such is not the case in hand. In the instant case, father of the victim female child/PW3 as well as the victim female child/PW3 has categorically deposed about age of the victim female child/PW3, which is gaining corroboration from the school record, and as such, no infirmity can be found in the finding of the learned trial court that the victim female/PW3 was a child, at the time of the alleged offence.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document

Aslam Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2019

APPEAL-1513-2018-APPA-1653-2018-J.doc 6 On this backdrop, it is in evidence of the victim female child/PW3 that in the year 2014, she was studying in 8 th Standard and she disclosed her age as 14 years, when she entered in the witness box on 6th August 2015. She was unable to tell her date of birth. The prosecution, however, has produced Birth Certificate of the victim female child/PW3 issued by Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar High School run by Pune Municipal Corporation and as per this certificate, the victim female child/PW3 was born on 1 st June 2000. Evidence of the victim female child/PW3 that she was 14 years of age as on 6th August 2015 is not shattered in her cross- examination. Thus, oral evidence of PW1 Murlidhar regarding birth of the victim female child/PW3 in June 2000 is gaining corroboration from version of the victim female child/PW3 as well the documentary evidence in the form of Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal School. Incident in question took place on18 th November 2014 and as such, on that day, the victim female child/PW3 was certainly below 18 years of age. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied on the judgment in the avk 9 ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 02:35:10 ::: APPEAL-1513-2018-APPA-1653-2018-J.doc matter of Sunil vs. State of Haryana (supra). In that case, PW1 Dr.Verma had clinically examined the prosecutrix and found her secondary sex characters well developed. Hence, he referred the prosecutrix for verification to the Dental Surgeon as well as the Radiologist, but the prosecution failed to get the prosecutrix examined from the Dental Surgeon and Radiologist, despite reference by Dr.Sadhna Verma. This was considered to be a serious flaw by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said matter. It is held therein that in the absence of primary evidence, reports of the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist would have helped the court in arriving at the conclusion regarding the age of the prosecutrix. Such is not the case in hand. In the instant case, father of the victim female child/PW3 as well as the victim female child/PW3 has categorically deposed about age of the victim female child/PW3, which is gaining corroboration from the school record, and as such, no infirmity can be found in the finding of the learned trial court that the victim female/PW3 was a child, at the time of the alleged offence.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document

Cra-S-877-Sb-2009 vs State Of Haryana on 30 June, 2014

53. On the quantum of sentence under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC there is no scope of interference as this is a case of gang rape and the learned trial Court has awarded the minimum sentence provided for the said offence. Therefore CRA-S-877-SB-2009 (Sunil Vs. State of Haryana) and CRA-S-1482-SB-2009 (Vijay Vs. State of Haryana) are partly allowed setting aside the conviction of Sunil and Vijay for offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC but their appeals to challenge the conviction and sentence made under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC are dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next