-
Parsu Ram vs. State
RatioThe conviction can be based even on the uncorroborated evidence of the child survivor, if the same inspires confidence. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the child survivor, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw…
PincitesPara 11-21, 17, 22-23, 26,28 Page 3, 4, 5-7
-
Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi.
RatioIf the statement of the victim inspires confidence, then the court may convict on the statement alone. Relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.
PincitesPara 18-19; Page 4
-
Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
RatioIt is well settled that in a case of rape, the finding of guilt can be recorded even on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the child survivor provided it is cogent and reliable. Even in a case of penetration, the consistent judicial diktat is that absence of injuries may not always be fatal to…
PincitesPara 16-18, 20; Page 4
-
Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
RatioThe child survivor being of tender age may have contradictions in their testimony. However, if they are consistent in their testimony as to the incident and are able to identify the accused, they would be considered a competent witness and their testimony may be admitted.
Pincitespara 19, 23 & 24.
-
Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal
RatioTestimony 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…
PincitesPara 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 42-44, 50, 61, 72-75; Page 5-8, 11, 14
-
Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
RatioWhen 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.
PincitesPara 43, 50, 52, 53; Page 5, 6, 7
-
Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
RatioSections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are held to be Constitutional and they do not violate the Fundamental Rights, nor are they contrary to the basic criminal Principles. Presumption under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO would become operational only after the prosecution has established the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.
PincitesPara 21-31, 35; Page 15-18