Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.49 seconds)

Mahadeo Shankar Dhaygude vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 December, 2012

13. A plain reading of the judgment in Mahadeo (supra) reveals that the Supreme Court had to borrow the means of determining the age of the prosecutrix from the provisions of r.12(3) (i) to (iii) of the Rules 8 of 2007, on account of the absence of an analogous provision in the POCSO. However, the Supreme Court never intended its opinion to forbid an enquiry by the Courts into the reliability of the date of birth of the prosecutrix, as entered in the school register. Such a view is further sustainable in the light of stringent and draconian provisions in the POCSO which require that the enquiry by the Court to ascertain the guilt of an accused under the provisions of the POCSO should be detailed and intense to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice by 9 / 13 convicting an innocent or acquitting the guilty. The judgment does not require that the Courts consider the date of birth of the prosecutrix entered in the school register as gospel truth."
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 34 - P D Kode - Full Document
1   2 Next