-
Court on its Own Motion v. State
RatioThe 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…
PincitesPara 6-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19-21, 77-78, 87-89, 93-94
-
State v. Sujeet Kumar
RatioThe 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,…
PincitesPara 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50-52, 57, 58
-
Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka
RatioThe court held that the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC in the course of investigation cannot be considered as substantive evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The court further held that the requirement of expeditious recording of a child victim’s evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act is…
PincitesPara 21-27, 41- 44, 49, 50, 56-61
-
Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
RatioApplications 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.
PincitesPara 25; Page 17
-
Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur
RatioThe child may have a parent or other trusted person present at the time of testifying and can call for assistance from an interpreter, special educator, or other professional while giving evidence. Further, the Court held that the child is not to be called repeatedly to testify in Court and may testify through a video…
PincitesPara 2, 15, 17, 19, 22; Page 1, 3, 4