Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 321 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dilip Kumar Sharma & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 1975
In Dilip v. State of M.P. 2002 SCC (Cri) 592 : 2001 Cri LJ 4721, what was observed by the Supreme Court and is relevant for the purposes of present case was as under :-
The Registration Of Births And Deaths Act, 1969
Lalta Prasad vs State Of M.P. on 11 January, 1979
10. It may not be out of place to mention that in the given situation and depending upon the facts of the case, the statement of prosecutrix is enough to convict the appellant if it otherwise inspires confidence in the natural course of things. In such a case no other evidence is required and the Court would not hesitate in convicting the accused on the basis of such statement of the prosecutrix. However, as observed here in this judgment no case is made out from the statement of PW 2 and other evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in taking in view that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 16 years I am supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lalta Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1276 : 1979 Cri LJ 867 and a judgment of this Court reported in Paramjit Singh v. State of H.P. 1987 Cri LJ 1266. In the context of the opinion of the doctor as to the age of the person on radiological test, margin of error in age ascertained by such examination is two years on either side.
Paramjit Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 June, 1986
10. It may not be out of place to mention that in the given situation and depending upon the facts of the case, the statement of prosecutrix is enough to convict the appellant if it otherwise inspires confidence in the natural course of things. In such a case no other evidence is required and the Court would not hesitate in convicting the accused on the basis of such statement of the prosecutrix. However, as observed here in this judgment no case is made out from the statement of PW 2 and other evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in taking in view that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 16 years I am supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lalta Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1276 : 1979 Cri LJ 867 and a judgment of this Court reported in Paramjit Singh v. State of H.P. 1987 Cri LJ 1266. In the context of the opinion of the doctor as to the age of the person on radiological test, margin of error in age ascertained by such examination is two years on either side.