Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing Lakhi Ram Takbi vs The State Of Sikkim on 28 March, 2019

State Of Sikkim vs Girjaman Rai @ Kami And Ors on 9 May, 2019

In re: Lakhi Ram Takbi v. State of Sikkim10 this Court held that the seizure of the birth certificate had been established and that it fulfilled the requirements of both Section 35 and Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was held that since no doubt was raised about the authenticity of the original birth certificate by way of examination of witnesses before the learned Trial Court this question could not be brought up before the Appellate Court since it was admitted without formal proof. In the said case the Headmaster of the School attended by the victim was examined as a prosecution witness who produced the original register maintained and exhibited the certified copy thereof. This Court noticed that the defence had failed to cross-examine regarding proof of entries therein and therefore, it was held that the certificate issued by the Headmaster which indicated the date of birth of the victim also was not demolished.
Sikkim High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

Alex P.V vs State Of Kerala on 13 July, 2021

Lakhi Ram Takbi v. State of Sikkim [2019 KHC 3670] of the Sikkim High Court is pointed out to bring home the principle of 'Ante litem motam' affording acceptability to documents certifying age, as the same was done long before the commission of the crime itself. It is asserted that the Sunday School is an Crl.A.No.416/2016 - 8 - educational institution and those who impart training has the status of a teacher. The accused also in his statement under S.313 admitted, having taught the prosecutrix in the Sunday School. That the act was committed using the influence, a teacher has on a student is quite evident and it attracts the offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act. As to the argument of non- examination of DW2 by the prosecution; it is urged that she was not necessary to unfold the prosecution case. In any event, the allegation of substitution of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, for another teacher, was never put to the witnesses, who recorded the FIS and registered the FIR. The conviction and sentence have to be upheld, especially taking into account the fact that the legislature in the case of such offences, against children below 16, made amendments to the IPC bringing in more severe punishment in the year 2018.
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Santa Kumar Rai vs State Of Sikkim on 4 October, 2023

In re: Lakhi Ram Takbi v. State of Sikkim [SLR (2019) SIKKIM 45] this Court held that the seizure of the birth certificate had been established and that it fulfilled the requirements of both Section 35 and Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was held that since no doubt was raised about the authenticity of the original birth certificate by way of examination of witnesses before the learned Trial Court this question could not be brought up before the Appellate Court since it was admitted without formal proof. In the said case the Headmaster of the School attended by the victim was examined as a prosecution witness who produced the original register maintained and exhibited the certified copy thereof. This Court noticed that the defence had failed to cross-examine regarding proof of entries therein and therefore, it was held that the certificate issued by the Headmaster which indicated the date of birth of the victim also was not demolished. Considering the evidences produced including the birth certificate, copy of the entries contained in the school register and the evidence of the Headmaster of the school this Court held that the prosecution had proved the victim's minority.
Sikkim High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M M Rai - Full Document

Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2024

13. Trial Court has recorded the finding that on 21.09.2015 at 12:00 pm the appellant/accused committed house trespass to commit sexual assault on the child victim PW-1 and also committed penetrative sexual assault, this finding does not require interference. Trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 354, 352 367(1), 376(2)(j) of the IPC and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 12-11-2024 19:10:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32023 6 CRA-2322-2018 Section 4 r/w Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012 but there are no ingredient that victim PW-1 was incapable to give the consent as required under Section 376(2) (j) of the IPC in the light of interpretation of the word 'incapable of giving consent' in Lakhi Ram Takbi Vs. State of Sikkim MANU/SI/0007/2019 in which it is held that Section 376(2)(j) deals with the situation where the victim is incapable of giving her consent due to some disability like intoxication, disease etc. But the Section do not cover the person who is incapable of giving her consent being a minor.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1