-
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. -
Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura
The duty to rebut the presumption under Section 29 POCSO arising only after the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the foundational facts.The burden to rebut the presumption can be discharged by the accused through effective cross-examination, or by adducing defence evidence or by the accused himself tendering oral evidence. The presumption and the duty to…
Pincites Para 27-33; Page 5, 6 & 7 Read case : Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.