Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Naveen Goshwami vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 July, 2018
24. In the present case, there is already on record, a medical determination of age for the detenue done adopting the ossification test by Dr. A.K. Jain, Senior Radiologist, P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut under the authority of the Chief Medical Officer, who on the basis of the report of Dr. Jain, has issued the certificate dated 22.04.2016, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 12, that opines the age of the detenue to be 17 years as on 22.04.2018. Normally, there is a variation of two years in the medical estimation of age, that is to be construed in favour of the person, whose liberty is dependent on that question. This question fell for consideration of this Court in Naveen Goshwami vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, Criminal Revision no.683 of 2018, decided on 20.07.2018, where it was held:
Akanksha Shukla @ Suhani Siddiqui vs State Of U.P.Through The ... on 10 May, 2010
23. The legal position in Suhani (supra) can be best appreciated by a ready reference to their Lordships short judgment there:
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Md.Ali @ Guddu vs State Of U.P on 10 March, 2015
14. The Magistrate has not all adverted to the fact that the detenue was also sent for medical examination to determine her age, to the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. The Chief Medical Officer, Meerut on the basis of a radiological examination done by Dr. A.K. Jain, Senior Radiologist, P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut, has through his certificate and opinion dated 22.04.2016, certified that the age of the detenue was about 17 years. The Revisional Court, in the order impugned, has mentioned in the passing that according to medical certification also, the detenue is a minor, unlike the Magistrate who has not at all adverted to medical evidence in support of his conclusions. However, like the Magistrate, the Sessions Judge has relied entirely, on whatever kind of school certificate about her date of birth was filed, at the sponsorship of the fourth respondent, by the prosecution, going by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and, the law laid down in Ali Mohammad (supra).
1