Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 652 (6.20 seconds)
Documents citing Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 July, 2013

Rajballabh Prasad @ Rajballabh Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 14 August, 2025

In this regard the law is well settled inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a judgment rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) that in case neither the matriculation/equivalent certificates are available nor the date of birth certificate from the school first attended is available nor the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat is present, medical opinion is required to be sought for from a duly constituted Medical Board which is required to declare the age of the juvenile or a child. In the present case we find that a Medical Board was constituted, as aforesaid, which had examined the prosecutrix on 17.02.2016 and furnished a medical report, opining therein that on the basis of physical, dental, radiological and pathological examination, the age of the prosecutrix is in between 16 to 17 years. As far as the medical report dated 17.02.2016 is concerned, we find that no Radiologist was a part of the Medical Board, hence neither radiological test was conducted nor expert opinion of the Radiologist was sought for, which is not only important but also conclusive in determining the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of ossification test and reliance was placed merely on a set of x- ray plates pertaining to some purported x-ray of the prosecutrix got done at some other hospital, however there is no proof on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 234/315 record to show that the same pertains to the prosecutrix, hence a doubt is created regarding the entire process of age determination of the prosecutrix. We also find that though PW- 10 (Dental Surgeon & Member of the Medical Board), in his evidence, has stated that since the third molar of the prosecutrix had not come out, her age is less than 17 years, however page no. 280 of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Addition, relied upon by the appellants shows that third molar or wisdom teeth can erupt any time in between 17th to 25th years of age thus the said opinion of PW-10 cannot be relied upon.
Patna High Court Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Sandeep Suman @ Pushpanjay vs The State Of Bihar on 14 August, 2025

In this regard the law is well settled inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a judgment rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) that in case neither the matriculation/equivalent certificates are available nor the date of birth certificate from the school first attended is available nor the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat is present, medical opinion is required to be sought for from a duly constituted Medical Board which is required to declare the age of the juvenile or a child. In the present case we find that a Medical Board was constituted, as aforesaid, which had examined the prosecutrix on 17.02.2016 and furnished a medical report, opining therein that on the basis of physical, dental, radiological and pathological examination, the age of the prosecutrix is in between 16 to 17 years. As far as the medical report dated 17.02.2016 is concerned, we find that no Radiologist was a part of the Medical Board, hence neither radiological test was conducted nor expert opinion of the Radiologist was sought for, which is not only important but also conclusive in determining the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of ossification test and reliance was placed merely on a set of x- ray plates pertaining to some purported x-ray of the prosecutrix got done at some other hospital, however there is no proof on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 234/315 record to show that the same pertains to the prosecutrix, hence a doubt is created regarding the entire process of age determination of the prosecutrix. We also find that though PW- 10 (Dental Surgeon & Member of the Medical Board), in his evidence, has stated that since the third molar of the prosecutrix had not come out, her age is less than 17 years, however page no. 280 of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Addition, relied upon by the appellants shows that third molar or wisdom teeth can erupt any time in between 17th to 25th years of age thus the said opinion of PW-10 cannot be relied upon.
Patna High Court Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Radha Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 14 August, 2025

In this regard the law is well settled inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a judgment rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) that in case neither the matriculation/equivalent certificates are available nor the date of birth certificate from the school first attended is available nor the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat is present, medical opinion is required to be sought for from a duly constituted Medical Board which is required to declare the age of the juvenile or a child. In the present case we find that a Medical Board was constituted, as aforesaid, which had examined the prosecutrix on 17.02.2016 and furnished a medical report, opining therein that on the basis of physical, dental, radiological and pathological examination, the age of the prosecutrix is in between 16 to 17 years. As far as the medical report dated 17.02.2016 is concerned, we find that no Radiologist was a part of the Medical Board, hence neither radiological test was conducted nor expert opinion of the Radiologist was sought for, which is not only important but also conclusive in determining the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of ossification test and reliance was placed merely on a set of x- ray plates pertaining to some purported x-ray of the prosecutrix got done at some other hospital, however there is no proof on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 234/315 record to show that the same pertains to the prosecutrix, hence a doubt is created regarding the entire process of age determination of the prosecutrix. We also find that though PW- 10 (Dental Surgeon & Member of the Medical Board), in his evidence, has stated that since the third molar of the prosecutrix had not come out, her age is less than 17 years, however page no. 280 of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Addition, relied upon by the appellants shows that third molar or wisdom teeth can erupt any time in between 17th to 25th years of age thus the said opinion of PW-10 cannot be relied upon.
Patna High Court Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Chhoti Devi @ Amrita vs The State Of Bihar on 14 August, 2025

In this regard the law is well settled inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a judgment rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) that in case neither the matriculation/equivalent certificates are available nor the date of birth certificate from the school first attended is available nor the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat is present, medical opinion is required to be sought for from a duly constituted Medical Board which is required to declare the age of the juvenile or a child. In the present case we find that a Medical Board was constituted, as aforesaid, which had examined the prosecutrix on 17.02.2016 and furnished a medical report, opining therein that on the basis of physical, dental, radiological and pathological examination, the age of the prosecutrix is in between 16 to 17 years. As far as the medical report dated 17.02.2016 is concerned, we find that no Radiologist was a part of the Medical Board, hence neither radiological test was conducted nor expert opinion of the Radiologist was sought for, which is not only important but also conclusive in determining the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of ossification test and reliance was placed merely on a set of x- ray plates pertaining to some purported x-ray of the prosecutrix got done at some other hospital, however there is no proof on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 234/315 record to show that the same pertains to the prosecutrix, hence a doubt is created regarding the entire process of age determination of the prosecutrix. We also find that though PW- 10 (Dental Surgeon & Member of the Medical Board), in his evidence, has stated that since the third molar of the prosecutrix had not come out, her age is less than 17 years, however page no. 280 of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Addition, relied upon by the appellants shows that third molar or wisdom teeth can erupt any time in between 17th to 25th years of age thus the said opinion of PW-10 cannot be relied upon.
Patna High Court Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Tusi Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 14 August, 2025

In this regard the law is well settled inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a judgment rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) that in case neither the matriculation/equivalent certificates are available nor the date of birth certificate from the school first attended is available nor the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat is present, medical opinion is required to be sought for from a duly constituted Medical Board which is required to declare the age of the juvenile or a child. In the present case we find that a Medical Board was constituted, as aforesaid, which had examined the prosecutrix on 17.02.2016 and furnished a medical report, opining therein that on the basis of physical, dental, radiological and pathological examination, the age of the prosecutrix is in between 16 to 17 years. As far as the medical report dated 17.02.2016 is concerned, we find that no Radiologist was a part of the Medical Board, hence neither radiological test was conducted nor expert opinion of the Radiologist was sought for, which is not only important but also conclusive in determining the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of ossification test and reliance was placed merely on a set of x- ray plates pertaining to some purported x-ray of the prosecutrix got done at some other hospital, however there is no proof on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 234/315 record to show that the same pertains to the prosecutrix, hence a doubt is created regarding the entire process of age determination of the prosecutrix. We also find that though PW- 10 (Dental Surgeon & Member of the Medical Board), in his evidence, has stated that since the third molar of the prosecutrix had not come out, her age is less than 17 years, however page no. 280 of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Addition, relied upon by the appellants shows that third molar or wisdom teeth can erupt any time in between 17th to 25th years of age thus the said opinion of PW-10 cannot be relied upon.
Patna High Court Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Sulekha Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 14 August, 2025

In this regard the law is well settled inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a judgment rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) that in case neither the matriculation/equivalent certificates are available nor the date of birth certificate from the school first attended is available nor the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat is present, medical opinion is required to be sought for from a duly constituted Medical Board which is required to declare the age of the juvenile or a child. In the present case we find that a Medical Board was constituted, as aforesaid, which had examined the prosecutrix on 17.02.2016 and furnished a medical report, opining therein that on the basis of physical, dental, radiological and pathological examination, the age of the prosecutrix is in between 16 to 17 years. As far as the medical report dated 17.02.2016 is concerned, we find that no Radiologist was a part of the Medical Board, hence neither radiological test was conducted nor expert opinion of the Radiologist was sought for, which is not only important but also conclusive in determining the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of ossification test and reliance was placed merely on a set of x- ray plates pertaining to some purported x-ray of the prosecutrix got done at some other hospital, however there is no proof on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 234/315 record to show that the same pertains to the prosecutrix, hence a doubt is created regarding the entire process of age determination of the prosecutrix. We also find that though PW- 10 (Dental Surgeon & Member of the Medical Board), in his evidence, has stated that since the third molar of the prosecutrix had not come out, her age is less than 17 years, however page no. 280 of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Addition, relied upon by the appellants shows that third molar or wisdom teeth can erupt any time in between 17th to 25th years of age thus the said opinion of PW-10 cannot be relied upon.
Patna High Court Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Sc No. 45/12 State vs Mohd. Nadeem Etc. Page No. 1 Of 52 on 6 June, 2015

55. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Jarnail Singh Vs State of Haryana (supra) has categorically held that there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned between a child in conflict with law and a child who is a victim of crime and therefore it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of 2007 rules to determine the age of the prosecutrix as well.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maheshbhai Sureshbhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2022

5. Apart from the quashment of the FIR, we notice that heavy reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2013(7) SCC 263. The corpus is major as per the said decision and that fact by way of affidavit was also brought to the notice at the time of quashment. Regardless of its non-mentioning in the order, the Court is noticing that the case of the applicant would be covered by the said decision with no resistance from either the Investigating Agency or from the Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 16 21:18:58 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/12985/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022 parents.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Lokesh And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through P.P on 10 May, 2017

It is to be noted that no suggestion was made to the prosecutrix that she was having a long standing love affair with appellant- Lokesh and even if on the day of incident intercourse took place between them it was with her consent and will. Prosecutrix has denied the suggestion that prior to the present incident also she had sexual intercourse with the appellant. Present case is of gang rape involving two persons punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reproted in 2013 Criminal Law Journal 3976 has held that in a case of "gang rape"
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Tomar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 January, 2021

15. This issue has also been considered in an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana; 2013 (7) SCC 263, where too it has been held that rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 must apply both to a child in conflict with law as well as to a victim of a crime. Paragraph 23 of the said report reads thus:
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next