-
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
-
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny
RatioThe testimony of a survivor in sexual offences cases is vital unless compelling reasons necessitate corroboration. Courts should find no difficulty to convict on the testimony of the survivor of a sexual assault alone if the testimony inspires confidence.
PincitesPara 31, Page 11
-
Vijay alias Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh
RatioConviction can be based solely on the testimony of the child survivor if it is trustworthy and reliable, even in the absence of corroborating evidence or injuries. Minor discrepancies in her does not make it unreliable.
PincitesPara 9-15 Page 195-198, 204, 205
-
State of Rajasthan v. N.K
RatioConvictions for rape can be founded solely on the testimony of the survivor, without the need for corroboration. However, if the court finds the testimony insufficiently credible on its own, it may seek additional evidence to bolster the survivor's account. A survivor's testimony under oath should be believed unless the testimony is such as would…
PincitesPara 11, 19 Page 39,42-44
-
Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
RatioWhere foundational facts have been established, the presumption under section 29 POCSO becomes operational and the accused is bound to rebut the presumption.
PincitesPara 32; Page 39 & 40.
-
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
-
Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors.
RatioWhile sexual intent under S. 8 POCSO is a question of fact, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under S. 30 POCSO with regard to the culpable state of mind of the accused when the court is satisfied with the existence of a fact beyond reasonable doubt.
PincitesPara 36-37, 42; Page 15, 17