Repository

Case Repository

1–5 of 5 cases
  1. High Court of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12300

    Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka

    Ratio

    The 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…

    Pincites

    Para 21-27, 41- 44, 49, 50, 56-61

  2. High Court of Bombay 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 873

    Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    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

  3. High Court of Bombay 2022 (4) Bom CR (Cri) 182

    Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    Absence of any injuries on the person of the child survivor might not by itself discredit the statement of the child survivor and in such a situation the non-production of a medical report would not be of much consequence if the other evidence was believable. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction…

    Pincites

    Para 12; Page 4

  4. High Court of Bombay 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 511

    Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    The court held that the concerned authorities of the State Government or Central Government will take some initiative in incorporating certain amendments under relevant laws so as to give status to Section 164 statement as that of examination-in-chief in all eventualities. The trauma that a victim has to undergo, after the incident does not stop…

    Pincites

    Para 48; Page 13, 14

  5. High Court of Gauhati Crl. Appeal (J) 87/2017

    Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam

    Ratio

    For the applicability of Section 29, the prosecution is required to establish foundational facts on the standard of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Once prosecution has been able to establish foundational facts based on preponderance of probability then by legal presumption under Section 29 of Act it could be said that prosecution…

    Pincites

    Para 63, 66, 123; Page 24, 28, 29, 52