SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 234

(BEFORE B.P. SINGH AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.)
SUNIL RATHI - Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2006,
Decided on March 10,2006

Headnote:This appeal is allowed in the above terms.

ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Special leave is granted.

3. The question that arises in the instant appeal is whether the petitioner on the date of occurrence was juvenile.

4. We have perused the order of the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion, after considering the certificates produced, that they did not conclusively prove that he was juvenile. However, when this objection was raised, the petitioner was not sent for examination by the Medical Board to ascertain his age. Normally, in a case where the evidence is not clear and convincing, the report of the Medical Board is of some assistance.

5. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the petitioner be examined by a Medical Board which shall ascertain his age and submit its report to the trial court. Thereafter, the trial court will take the report into consideration and pass appropriate orders.

6. This appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top