-
Murugasamy Vs. The State and Ors.
RatioThe court, in this case, analysed the procedure to record 164 statements of the victim/witness i.e- once the magistrate records a 164 statement, a record of the statement should be sent to the investigating officer and the jurisdictional court. The statement should not be made public. The court also observed that the term “Magistrate” under…
PincitesPara 17, 21, 24, 28, 44, 48, 50, 51; Page 8-10, 14-17
-
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.
-
Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand
RatioA conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the child survivor and there is no need for corroboration unless there exist compelling reasons for the same. Further, minor discrepancies in the child survivor's statement will not discredit an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
PincitesPara 27; Page 4
-
Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State
RatioThe presumption clause of Section 29 POCSO is applicable to both the offender and the abettor of the offence. When foundational facts have been established, the accused must discharge the reverse burden cast by Sections 29 and 30 POCSO.
PincitesPara 16-17; Page 8