Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 4 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
P.Rajagopal And Ors. Etc. vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 March, 2019
14. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 771
held in Paragraphs No.49, and 52 as under:
Piyushbhai Premjibhai Limbasiya vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 June, 2021
15. A Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of
Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Guj 12076 relying the Apex
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 April, 2005
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8847-DB
CRL.A No. 100570 of 2022
HC-KAR
Court judgment in the case Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 5 SCC
294 held in Paragraph Nos.24 to 26 as under:
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2022
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj v.
State of M.P., reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353, held regarding
the Collection and Preservation of Evidence that, if DNA
evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and
preserved, it will not meet the legal and scientific requirements
for admissibility in a court of law. Because extremely small
samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to
contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting and
preserving. DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from
another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This
can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the
evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the
face and then touches area that may contain the DNA to be
tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can
1