Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)
Vijay Kumar vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi on 20 November, 2014 cites

Hari Singh Meena vs State Of Raj And Anr on 27 October, 2009

10. We may all the same hasten to add that the material referred to above is yet to be verified and its genuineness and credibility determined. There are no doubt certain telltale circumstances that may raise a suspicion about the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the Appellant. For instance, the deceased Asha Devi who was married to the Appellant was according to Dr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Pathologist, District Hospital, Rae Bareilly aged 19 years at the time of her death. This would mean as though the Appellant husband was much younger to his wife which is not the usual practice in the Indian context and may happen but infrequently. So also the fact that the Appellant obtained the school leaving certificate as late as on 17-11-2009 i.e. after the conclusion of the trial and disposal of the first appeal by the High Court, may call for a close scrutiny and examination of the relevant school record to determine whether the same is free from any suspicion, fabrication or manipulation. It is also alleged that the electoral rolls showed the age of the accused to be around 20 years while the extract from the panchayat register showed him to be 19 years old.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P on 19 November, 2010

In Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 13 SCC 523, on behalf of the Appellant, a plea was raised that he was minor within the meaning of Section 2(k) of 2000 Act on the date of commission of the offence. The Appellant had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer seven years' imprisonment under the former and two years under the latter. The Appellant had got the bail from the High Court on the ground of his age which was on medical examination certified to be around seventeen years on the date of commission of the offence. One of us (T.S. Thakur, J.) who authored the judgment for the Bench held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an enquiry for determining the age of the Appellant was necessary. This Court referred to the earlier decisions in Gopinath Ghosh 1984 (Supp) SCC 228, Bhoop Ram (1989) 3 SCC 1, Bhola Bhagat (1997) 8 SCC 720, Hari Ram (2009) 13 SCC 211 and Pawan (2009) 15 SCC 259 and then held that the burden of making out the prima facie case had been discharged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Pawan vs State Of Uttaranchal on 26 February, 2009

31. It was held in Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259 that where the materials placed before this Court by the accused, prima facie, suggested that he was 'juvenile' as defined in 2000 Act on the date of incident, it was necessary to call for the report or an inquiry to be made for determination of the age on the date of incident. However, where a plea of juvenility is found unscrupulous or the materials lack credibility or do not inspire confidence and even prima facie satisfaction of the court is not made out, further exercise in this regard may not be required. It was also stated that if the plea of juvenility was not raised before the trial court or the High Court and is raised for the first time before this Court, the judicial conscience of the court must be satisfied by placing adequate material that the accused had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of commission of offence. In absence of adequate material, any further inquiry into juvenility would not be required.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 40 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1