Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Cidco vs Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar on 15 May, 2009
6. (2009) 7 SCC 283-between CIDCO Vs.
Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar,
wherein it is held that: "Entry in Municipal
Births and Deaths Register-Certificate
issued by predecessor of municipality i.e.,
Gram Panchayath-Effect-Held, the said
entry prevails over entry in school register,
particularly in the absence of any proof that
the same was recorded at the instance of
employee's guardian-Further the same was
recorded at the instance of employee's
guardian-Further held, certificate issued by
municipality could not be discarded on the
ground that employee's birth, took place
prior to creation of municipality as the
certificate was issued on the basis of
records maintained by pre-deceassor body,
namely, Gram Panchayath."
Sunil vs State Of Haryana on 4 December, 2009
8. (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 910 & (2010) 1 SCC
742-between Sunil Vs. State of Haryana,
wherein it is held that: "Rape, kidnapping and
procuration of minor girl-Age of minor-Benefit of
doubt-When available-prosecution falling to prove
age of prosecutrix-Prosecutrix found as being
57 Spl.CC.No.274/2014
habitual to sex and her secondary sexual
characteristics well developed (as per clinical
report of Pw.1)-Appellant-accused frequently
visiting prosecutrix's house-Prosecutrix in love
with appellant, never resisting being repeatedly
deflowered by him-Allegation that prosecutrix
under threat accompanied appellant on a bicycle
to another village where she was raped by
appellant and then brought back home-Non-
performance of tests for proving age of
prosecutrix prescribed by the doctor, held is a
serious flaw in prosecution version-In such
circumstances, held, a close and careful
examination of age of prosecutrix is imperative,
which if not proved, accused is entitled to benefit
of doubt, as in present-case-Criminal Trial-Age-
Need for accuracy in ascertainment of-Held, in a
criminal trial conviction cannot be based on an
approximate age which is not supported by any
record."
Alamelu & Anr vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 18 January, 2011
9. (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 385-between Alamelu
& Another Vs. State, wherein it is held
that the sole evidence of prosecutrix is not
sustainable and this citation is also relied
62 Spl.CC.No.274/2014
upon with respect to the age of the
prosecutrix.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit on 2 August, 1988
1. AIR 1998 SC 1796-between Birad Mal
Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, which relates to
date of birth of the victim. Wherein it is held
that "the documents regarding school register
is of not much evidentiary value to prove the
age of the person in the absence of the
material on record".
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Buta Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 26 March, 1991
2. 1991 Cri.L.J. 1464-between Buta Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it is held
that: "When two versions are before the
Court, the version which is supported by
objective evidence cannot be brushed aside
lightly unless it has been properly
explained".