Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Babu Allas Roni Manilal on 21 January, 1987
36), which indicates that the said entry was made on the basis of a guardian certificate when the girl was admitted in Standard I to the school. Mr. Abichandani submitted that this is a register maintained by the school which is run by Nagar Shikshan Samiti, Ahmedabad in ordinary course of business. Mr. Abichandani submitted that around 8 to 9 years back nobody could have anticipated such event, and therefore, there is no reason to doubt the date of birth of the prosecutrix stated in this certificate. Mr. Abichandani submitted that the judgments rendered by this Court in cases of State of Gujarat v. Babu @ Roni Manilal (supra) as well as State of Gujarat v. Jivanlal Chhotalal Patel (supra) were in different set of facts when the evidence regarding first admission of the prosecutrix to the school was not adduced by the prosecution. Mr. Abichandani submitted that the said judgments were rendered in appeals by State against acquittal, and therefore, observations made therein regarding School Leaving Certificates would be in set of facts of that case, and therefore, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
Bhoop Ram vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 1989
19.1 In Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P. , the Apex Court accepted a School Leaving Certificate to determine the age of the child as against medical certificate. That was a case under U.P. Children Act, 1952 and question was determination of age of the accused. The lower Court had accepted the medical certificate to come to a conclusion that the age of the accused was more than 16 years. The Apex Court did not approve the approach of lower Court in not accepting the school certificate in absence of any material to throw doubt about the entries. In the instant case also, there is no reason to doubt the entries made in the general register of the school. The entries are duly proved and the age of the prosecutrix is stated to be very near to the age that would emerge from the deposition by the mother, and therefore, there is no reason to come to a specific conclusion that the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age in which event only her consent would make a difference so far as case of rape is concerned.
Umesh Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 April, 1982
The Apex Court also observed in Paragraph 11 that "a perusal of the provisions of Section 35 would clearly reveal that there is no legal requirement that the public or other official book should be kept only by a public officer but all that is required is that it should be regularly kept in discharge of her official duty". The Apex Court finding that the school where the documents were maintained was an English Public School, observed that the record maintained by it was undoubtedly unimpeachable and authentic and could not be suspected or presumed to be tampered with. At the time when the age of the appellant was first mentioned in the admission form, there was absolutely no dispute about the date of birth or for that matter the exact date on which he was bora and there could not have been any motive on the part of the parents of the accused to give false date of birth because it was his first admission to a school at a very early age. Further, the school to which the appellant was admitted being a public school, enjoyed good reputation of authenticity. The Apex Court accepted the school certificate in that case.
Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit on 2 August, 1988
18. Reliance was placed on the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (supra), wherein it was observed that an entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act, but the entry referring to the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. The Apex Court was considering the question of an entry made in the school register of a Secondary School Certificate. In addition to these decisions, learned Counsel submitted that the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay and Madras have considered the question of probative value of an entry regarding the date of birth made in the scholar's register in school certificate in election cases. The Courts have consistently held that the date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register of Secondary School Certificate has no probative value unless either the parents are examined or person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined. This judgment therefore, will not apply to the present case as this Court has before it, the general register (Not Scholar's Register) maintained by the school when entries are made at the time of the entry of the student in the school. In the present case, that entry is made on the basis of a guardian certificate, which gives details including date of birth. The judgments cited by learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, will not help the appellant.