Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.35 seconds)Section 35 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 94 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Section 94 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rishipal Singh Solanki vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 November, 2021
In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, this court outlined the procedure to
be followed in cases where age determination is required.
The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile
Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with
Section 94 of the JJ Act, and held as follows:
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs State Of U.P on 12 May, 2006
"The age of a person as recorded in the school register
or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely,
for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment, for
contesting election, registration of marriage, obtaining a
separate unit under the ceiling laws, and even for the
purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of
being represented in a court of law by a guardian or
where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being
a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or
any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a
minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the
age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard
to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will
have to apply the same standard. No different standard
can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of
abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or
the prosecutrix although might have consented with the
10
accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the
register maintained by the school, a judgment of
conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of
his constitutional right under Article 21 of the
Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be
convicted."
Alamelu & Anr vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 18 January, 2011
In the matter of Alamelu and Another Vs. State,
represented by Inspector of Police, 2011(2) SCC 385, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer certificate which
is issued by government school and is duly signed by the
Headmaster would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of
the Evidence Act 1872. However, the admissibility of such a
document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the
age of the prosecutrix in the absence of any material on the basis
of which the age was recorded. It was observed as under: