-
Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra
RatioAbsence 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…
PincitesPara 12; Page 4
-
Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra
RatioThe 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…
PincitesPara 48; Page 13, 14
-
Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura
RatioThe 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…
PincitesPara 27-33; 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