-
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 -
Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand
A conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the child survivor and there is no need for corroboration unless there exist compelling reasons for the same. Further, minor discrepancies in the child survivor’s statement will not discredit an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
Pincites Para 27; Page 4 Read case : Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand -
Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal
Testimony of a child can only be relied on if it is intelligible. A testimony is intelligible based on (a) the ability to understand questions put to the witness and (b) give answers to those questions that can be understood. If evidence is in the favour of the survivor, mere lapses in the survivor's statement…
Pincites Para 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 42-44, 50, 61, 72-75; Page 5-8, 11, 14 Read case : Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal -
Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
When the prosecution fails to establish a strong preponderance of probability sufficient to raise a presumption under Section 29 POCSO, the negative burden to prove their innocence will not shift to the accused if the defence effectively discredits the prosecution's case, the accused will be discharged of their onus under Section 29 POCSO.
Pincites Para 43, 50, 52, 53; Page 5, 6, 7 Read case : Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.