Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
The present appeal emanates from the Final Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Criminal Revision No.2144/2015 dated 29.03.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) [2016:AHC:50543], whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the Appellant and upheld the Order passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kairana, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) on 19.05.2015, declaring Respondent No.2 as a ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Juvenile Justice Act’) [as it then was].
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The Appellant alleges that, on 31.08.2011, while the Appellant, his father, mother and his brother/Rajesh Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rajesh’) had gone to their fields, his chacha (paternal uncle)/Lillu Singh and his son Devi Singh/Respondent No.2 forcibly entered his house at around 10 am. When restrained by his wife who was alone at the house, the Appellant alleges that the two persons – father and son i.e
None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The sole case law provided does not contain any language or context suggesting negative treatment or judicial invalidation. Therefore, there are no cases identified as bad law based on the information given.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None: The list does not specify that the case has been followed or affirmed in subsequent rulings.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
None: There is no indication that the case was distinguished or clarified in later judgments.
[Criticized / Questioned]
None: The case law provided does not mention any criticism or questioning of its validity or reasoning.
[Uncertain / Ambiguous treatment]
**Source :** Birad Mal Singhvi VS Anand Purohit - Supreme Court Om Prakash VS State of Rajasthan - Supreme Court
Juvenility – Headmaster/Principal of a State Government-recognized school cannot be said to be a ‘public servant’ for the purposes of Evidence Act.
The court can rely on evidence, including radiological tests, to determine a person's age and may reject a claim of juvenility based on contradictory claims and evidence.
The determination of a juvenile's age should consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the need for a just view to ensure justi....
The court determined that documents indicating age must be prioritized as per Juvenile Justice Act, with the accused confirmed as a juvenile based on familial ages and educational certificates.
The court emphasized that age determination in juvenile cases must primarily rely on credible documentation like birth certificates and school records, with ossification tests being a last resort in ....
The date of birth in a matriculation certificate is conclusive unless credible evidence suggests otherwise, with courts favoring juvenility in borderline cases.
Educational certificates must be prioritized over medical evaluations in age determination cases under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The court ruled that the age determination of a juvenile must prioritize the matriculation certificate over conflicting lower school records, maintaining adherence to statutory guidelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
