-
Sakshi v. Union of India
RatioGuidelines laid down specifically for recording of evidence of in cases of child sexual abuse:(i) a screen or some such arrangements may be made where the victim or witnesses (who may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or face of the accused; (ii) the questions put in cross-examination on behalf…
PincitesPara 1, 34; Page 1, 18.1
-
The State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna
RatioThe high court issued interim directions to all the police stations for the recording of 164 statement: The investigating officer should preferably be female. The IO shall take immediate steps to take the prosecutrix to a female MM magistrate for the recording of the 164 statement, within 24 hours. In case the time period is…
PincitesPara 1, 2, 9; Page 1, 3
-
State of Maharashtra v. Bandu
RatioThere is a need to create a conducive environment to encourage vulnerable witnesses to make their statements. Screens or a similar arrangement must be made to ensure that they don’t see the face or body of the accused. Questions for cross examination must be given in writing to the presiding officer of the Court who…
PincitesPara 10; Page 2
-
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh
RatioCorroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence. As a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence. However, in…
PincitesPara 11 and 12; Page 2-3
-
Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
RatioConviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the victim and the same does not require corroboration, provided that the testimony is natural and trustworthy. The Court must look at the broad probabilities, not discard the testimony due to minor contradictions which are not substantial in character given that they are usually…
PincitesPara 383-393; Page 200-205
-
Rajinder alias Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh
RatioConviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. There is only need to look for corroboration when the prosecution’s case suffers from high improbabilities.
PincitesPara 19; Page 11
-
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram
RatioConviction can be based on the sole testimony of the child survivor. Corroboration of the child survivor’s testimony is only a general prudence necessitated in certain circumstances and is not a requirement of law. Minor inconsistencies are immaterial and must not form a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
PincitesPara 5, 15-20; Page 5, 8-10
-
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
RatioCorroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. If the testimony of the child is reliable and inspires confidence, courts can convict on the disposition of the child victim alone. Supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in…
PincitesPara 9 and 13 Page 5-7, 10
-
Phool Singh v. State of MP
RatioConviction can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor, without any further corroboration, provided the testimony is found reliable and trustworthy. Even in the absence of any external or internal injuries on the person of the survivor, the conviction can be sustained.
PincitesPara 4-11, Pages 3-11
-
Ganesan v. State
RatioIn cases where the child survivor is found to be worthy of credence and reliable even if other witnesses turn hostile, conviction can be based on her sole testimony. No corroboration is required.
PincitesPara 8.1-12, Pages 4-9