Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.38 seconds)The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs State Of West Bengal on 10 October, 2012
In Abuzar Hossain vs State of W.B (supra) it is laid down as a guiding principle that "the courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima-facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability." It is true that the medical opinion is not binding upon the Court in respect of age of the accused and the same is only a tentative opinion which may not be accurate, but to discard that opinion some reasonable evidence was required to be gathered by the prosecution. In the case at hand no such evidence has been adduced by the prosecution which could be credible to disbelieve the medical evidence in respect of this accused/revisionist, nor the trial Court deemed it proper to summon any of the Doctors who were member of the Medical Board to cross-examine on this point. Therefore due to lack of any contrary piece of evidence, discarding the said opinion of the Medical Board was unjustified. It is also a settled principle of law that in borderline Cases as to the age, the benefit should be extended to the accused.
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State Of M.P on 13 September, 2012
27. On the basis of above report, the trial Court has expressed opinion that on the basis of medical evidence as contained in paper No. 46 A/3, it was evident that the age of accused was more than 18 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 05/08/2009, hence he was not a juvenile. Further it is mentioned by the trial Court that in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of MP, 2013 (SC) 593 in Para 6, the dental Surgeon had opined about the age of accused to be 21 years on the basis that the 32 teeth were found in his jaws and that in an x-ray report the bones of wrist, elbow and knee were found fused, on the basis of which Doctor had opined about the age of the accused to be more than 20 years, therefore in the case on hand also the learned trial Court has opined that the accused was more than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and hence was an adult. Otherwise also APW 1, Tularam, father of the accused could not tell his age nor could he file any family register.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Brij Mohan Singh vs Priya Brat Narain Sinha And Ors on 5 February, 1964
22. First of all, the case of accused - revisionist No. 2 Bhovraj is being taken up. It is evident from the record that though the mother of the accused has denied that accused had ever gone to any school for studying, rather asserted that he was absolutely illiterate because of which she could not submit any certificate of high school (matriculation) or that of the school first attended, other than play school. This claim of the mother of the accused has been challenged by the complainant - opposite party No. 2 by producing evidence of his having studied in Pathamik Vidyalaya, Ubhai, Asad Nagar, by examining CW 1, Man Pal Singh, who presented before Court the admission register of the said school of the year 1991, which the accused first attended, in which at serial No. 4703, the name of the present accused has been found recorded and his date of birth is found entered as 10/10/1991 in the said register, photo copy of the relevant page of which has been proved as Exhibit Kha - 02 by this witness. It was found proved by the Court below that the said document did prove that he had taken admission in the said school on 15/07/1997, therefore if his age is computed on the date of occurrence (05/08/2009) on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the said admission register i.e. 10/10/1991, his age would be less than 18 years (it would stand at 17 years 10 months and 25 days to be exact). But the learned lower Court has held him to be major by relying upon the law laid down in Brij Mohan Singh's case (supra) holding that it was often seen that for ensuring advantage to the child later in life in public service, the parents generally record the age of their child on the lower side.