Home Cases POCSO
Repository

POCSO

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.

1–5 of 5 cases
  1. High Court of Bombay Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2016 [2022 (4) Bom CR (Cri) 182]

    Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    Absence of any injuries on the person of the child survivor might not by itself discredit the statement of the child survivor and in such a situation the non-production of a medical report would not be of much consequence if the other evidence was believable. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction…

    Pincites

    Para 12; Page 4

  2. High Court of Calcutta CRA 69 of 2019 [2022 Cri LJ 439]

    Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal

    Ratio

    Testimony of a child can only be relied on if it is intelligible. A testimony is intelligible based on (a) the ability to understand questions put to the witness and (b) give answers to those questions that can be understood. If evidence is in the favour of the victim, mere lapses in the victim's statement…

    Pincites

    Para 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 42-44, 50, 61, 72-75; Page 5-8, 11, 14

  3. High Court of Bombay [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 511]

    Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    The court held that the concerned authorities of the State Government or Central Government will take some initiative in incorporating certain amendments under relevant laws so as to give status to Section 164 statement as that of examination-in-chief in all eventualities. The trauma that a victim has to undergo, after the incident does not stop…

    Pincites

    Para 48; Page 13, 14

  4. High Court of Calcutta C.R.A. No. 458 of 2018 and IA No. CRAN 2 of 2020 [MANU/WB/0635/2021]

    Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.

    Ratio

    When the prosecution fails to establish a strong preponderance of probability sufficient to raise a presumption under Section 29 POCSO, the negative burden to prove their innocence will not shift to the accused if the defence effectively discredits the prosecution's case, the accused will be discharged of their onus under Section 29 POCSO.

    Pincites

    Para 43, 50, 52, 53; Page 5, 6, 7

  5. High Court of Tripura at Agartala Crl. A (J) 34 of 2019 [MANU/TR/0211/2021]

    Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura

    Ratio

    The duty to rebut the presumption under Section 29 POCSO arising only after the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the foundational facts.The burden to rebut the presumption can be discharged by the accused through effective cross-examination, or by adducing defence evidence or by the accused himself tendering oral evidence. The presumption and the duty to…

    Pincites

    Para 27-33; Page 5, 6 & 7