-
Court on its Own Motion v. State
The court held that a statement under the POCSO Act can be made only to a police officer or magistrate. Counsellors and NGOs can merely play a facilitative role and cannot take a statement from the child. Further, the court clarified that the notes of the counsellor or the expert are confidential and cannot be…
Pincites Para 6-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19-21, 77-78, 87-89, 93-94 Read case : Court on its Own Motion v. State -
State v. Sujeet Kumar
The court interpreted Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”) in reference to POCSO cases and held that evidence of child survivors cannot be rejected per se but merits close scrutiny by the court as a rule of prudence. The court further discussed the various aspects of determining the competence of child survivor,…
Pincites Para 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50-52, 57, 58 Read case : State v. Sujeet Kumar -
Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra
The court took note of the problem of long delays in recording testimonies of child survivors and the adverse effects it has on the child and the prosecution’s case. In light of these observations, the court framed and issued guidelines to be followed to ensure expeditious recording of testimonies of child survivors. The court stressed…
Pincites Para 11 - 15; Page 2 - 5 Read case : Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra -
Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Applications for recalling a child survivor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) are subject to Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act on the principle of generalia specialibus non-derogant. The conflicting rights of the accused and the survivor have to be balanced when considering such an application.
Pincites Para 25; Page 17 Read case : Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
