Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
The question whether the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 29th
November, 1964 or 29th June, 1963 is no more in controversy.
The date of birth of the prosecutrix, as of 29.11.1964, has been
recorded concurrently by both the Trial Court and the High Court on
consideration of the evidence of PW-1, Pandurang, father of the prosecutrix
and PW-13, Vimal, mother of the prosecutrix, corroborated by the age of the
prosecutrix recorded in the date of birth register of Greater Bombay
Municipal Corporation and the register of Kashibai Hospital, Santa Cruz,
where the prosecutrix was born. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-13, father
and mother of the prosecutrix supported by contemporaneous
documents/registers produced by the prosecution like date of birth register in
Bombay Municipal and the date of birth register in the hospital where the
prosecutrix was born and the evidence of the doctor clearly establish that
the prosecutrix was born on 29.11.1964. Therefore, this question need not
detain us any longer in view of the observations of this Court in the case of
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 Supreme
Court 753, this Court held at para 5 page SC- 755:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Madan Gopal Kakkad vs Naval Dubey And Anr on 29 April, 1992
In the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Anr.
(1992) 3 SCC 204 this Court has considered a similar question and pointed
out in paragraph 34 at page SCC 221 as under:
Section 57 in The Bombay Children Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
1