State vs.rama Dhall

State vs Rama Dhall

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 22, 2018

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1219456

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1219456
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Nov 22, 2018
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Rama Dhall

Excerpt

.....accordingly she has to face trial for section 323 ipc and not section of the jj act. crl.rev.p. 970-2018 page 1 of 2 2. the allegations against the respondent is that she had employed and maltreated the victim. since there were no documents available of proof of age, as stipulated by the jj act, the age of the victim was ascertained through medical examination.3. the board of babu jagjivan ram memorial hospital has opined the age of the victim to be between 18 to 20 years.4. the trial court considering the age determined as 18 to 20 years opined that the victim was not a child as defined under the jj act and as such section would not be attracted.5. on perusal of the record, i am of the view that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the trial court. the board after medical examination has opined the age to be 18 to 20 years. keeping in view the fact that benefit of doubt has to go to the accused, the age would have to be taken to be the higher of the range as determined by the medical examination while, further keeping in view the margin of error of 1 to 2 years. clearly the victim was not a minor when the alleged offence is stated to have happened.6. in view of the above, the petition has no merit. the same is accordingly dismissed.7. order dasti under the signature of the court master. sanjeev sachdeva, j november22 2018/rk crl.rev.p. 970-2018 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

22. 11.2018 CRL.REV.P. 970/2018 STATE RAMA DHALL versus ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

:Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP with Inspector Dhiraj Singh, P.S.Ashok Vihar. For the Respondent : None. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2211.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) Crl.M.A.35658/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.REV.P. 970/2018 1. State has filed the subject revision petition impugning the order dated 24.08.2018 whereby the Trial Court has discharged accused Rama Dhall of the offences under Sections
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the JJ Act) and has opined that because of the maltreatment, Section 323 of the IPC would be attracted and accordingly she has to face trial for Section 323 IPC and not Section
of the JJ Act. CRL.REV.P. 970-2018 Page 1 of 2 2. The allegations against the respondent is that she had employed and maltreated the victim. Since there were no documents available of proof of age, as stipulated by the JJ Act, the age of the victim was ascertained through medical examination.

3. The board of Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital has opined the age of the victim to be between 18 to 20 years.

4. The Trial Court considering the age determined as 18 to 20 years opined that the victim was not a child as defined under the JJ Act and as such Section
would not be attracted.

5. On perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court. The board after medical examination has opined the age to be 18 to 20 years. Keeping in view the fact that benefit of doubt has to go to the accused, the age would have to be taken to be the higher of the range as determined by the medical examination while, further keeping in view the margin of error of 1 to 2 years. Clearly the victim was not a minor when the alleged offence is stated to have happened.

6. In view of the above, the petition has no merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.

7. Order Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER22 2018/rk CRL.REV.P. 970-2018 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties State vs Rama Dhall Same Subject Land Acquisition