-
Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka
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 Read case : Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka -
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 -
S. Sankara Varman Vs. State
The Court held that Sections 33(5) and 36(1) of the POCSO Act mandate that a child survivor ought not to be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. While Section 311 of the CrPC gives power to the Court to recall any witness to serve the cause of justice, but the said section is subject…
Pincites Para 19, 23; Page 3,4 Read case : S. Sankara Varman Vs. State -
Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra
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 Read case : Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra -
Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra
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 Read case : Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra -
Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State
The presumption clause of Section 29 POCSO is applicable to both the offender and the abettor of the offence. When foundational facts have been established, the accused must discharge the reverse burden cast by Sections 29 and 30 POCSO.
Pincites Para 16-17; Page 8 Read case : Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.