-
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
-
Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur
RatioProvisions of the POCSO reiterated by the court: The 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 child is not to be called repeatedly to testify in Court and may…
PincitesPara 2, 15, 17, 19, 22; Page 1, 3, 4
-
Murugasamy Vs. The State and Ors.
RatioThe court, in this case, analysed the procedure to record 164 statements of the victim/witness i.e- once the magistrate records a 164 statement, a record of the statement should be sent to the investigating officer and the jurisdictional court. The statement should not be made public. The court also observed that the term “Magistrate” under…
PincitesPara 17, 21, 24, 28, 44, 48, 50, 51; Page 8-10, 14-17
-
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
-
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 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
-
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
-
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