Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Vipin Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail under cr.pc. (Para 1) |
| 2. disputed dates of birth of prosecutrix. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. verification of age details by uidai. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. opposition to verification by petitioner. (Para 7) |
| 5. importance of determining age for jurisdiction. (Para 8) |
| 6. need for correct age ascertainment. (Para 9) |
ORDER
1. An application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 118/2021 under Sections 363/366/376/506 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Neb Sarai.
2. A copy of the petition be supplied to the learned counsel for the prosecutrix, as prayed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that the age of the prosecutrix as per the copy of the Aadhar Card in his possession is 07.03.2001 and as such, she was a major on the alleged date of incident. Reliance is also placed upon the PAN Card as well copy of the voter I.D. Card issued to the prosecutrix.
4. On the other hand, it is pointed out by the learned APP for the State that as per investigation, the copy of the Aadhar Card furnished by the prosecutrix reflects date of birth as `2004'. Furth
Proper determination of the victim's age is crucial for POCSO Act applicability and correct trial proceedings, requiring verification by UIDAI when conflicting evidence exists.
Bail application – FIR registered under Sections 363/366/376/506 IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Proper determination of age of victim is important from jurisdictional perspective which ....
The court affirmed the accused's right to summon evidence for their defense, highlighting the importance of fair trial principles in ensuring justice.
The court ruled that the School Leaving Certificate and Higher Secondary documents are superior for age determination, while the Aadhar card is not conclusive proof of date of birth.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the Aadhaar card to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix as per the mandate of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of evidence, age determination, and the presumption as to certain offences under the POCSO Act in the context of a bail applica....
The appeal was allowed as the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix's age and voluntary relationship negated the charges of abduction and rape.
It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration - In a criminal trial, importance of questi....
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age as on the date of the incident. Under these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty of o....
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
