Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.44 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Chhoteylal on 14 January, 2011
In State of U.P.
Vs. Chhoteylal, AIR 2011 SC 697, it was held by the apex
Court that there is no such rule much less absolute one that
two years have to be added to age of determined by doctor.
State Of Karnataka vs Bantara Sudhakara @ Sudha & Anr on 18 July, 2008
In
the judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Bantara Sudhakara
@ Sudha & others, (2008) 11 SCC 38, three judges bench
has held that, merely because the doctor's evidence showed
that the victims belongs to the age group of 14 to 16, to
conclude that the two years' age has to be added to the age
upper age-limit was without any foundation.
Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Murti vs State Of Haryana on 14 April, 1970
13. It is now well settled that on the basis of margin of error, it is
not mandatory to add or subtract the age determined in the
ossification test. The reliance of appellant on Jayamala (supra)
cannot be followed in view of judgment of three judges Bench
or apex Court in Ram Murti (supra). Considering the evidence
on record the margin of difference between the date of birth of
prosecutrix as proved by the prosecution and the opinion of
doctor given in the ossification test, a reasonable approach has
to be taken to arrive at finding. The date of birth as per school
register has been supported by the mother of prosecutrix
Sushila (PW/6) in her statement, whereas the age on the basis
of ossification test opined by doctor is just an opinion evidence.
For these reasons, it is better suited to follow the evidence on
the basis of school register as mother of prosecutrix has better
knowledge about the age of prosecutrix. Hence, for these
reasons the finding of the trial Court that age of proseuctirx at
10
the relevant time had been about 14 years is a correct finding
which needs no interference.