Repository

Case Repository

1–10 of 10 cases
  1. High Court of Delhi 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10301

    Court on its Own Motion v. State

    Ratio

    The court held that a statement under the POCSO Act can be made only to a police officer or magistrate. Counsellors and NGOs can merely play a facilitative role and cannot take a statement from the child. Further, the court clarified that the notes of the counsellor or the expert are confidential and cannot be…

    Pincites

    Para 6-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19-21, 77-78, 87-89, 93-94

  2. High Court of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1952

    State v. Sujeet Kumar

    Ratio

    The court interpreted Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”) in reference to POCSO cases and held that evidence of child survivors cannot be rejected per se but merits close scrutiny by the court as a rule of prudence. The court further discussed the various aspects of determining the competence of child survivor,…

    Pincites

    Para 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50-52, 57, 58

  3. High Court of Delhi Crl M.C. 1615 of 2020

    Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Ratio

    Applications for recalling a child survivor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) are subject to Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act on the principle of generalia specialibus non-derogant. The conflicting rights of the accused and the survivor have to be balanced when considering such an application.

    Pincites

    Para 25; Page 17

  4. High Court of Madras 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 5681

    S. Sankara Varman Vs. State

    Ratio

    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

  5. High Court of Delhi (2022) 293 DLT 236

    Parsu Ram vs. State

    Ratio

    The conviction can be based even on the uncorroborated evidence of the child survivor, if the same inspires confidence. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the child survivor, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw…

    Pincites

    Para 11-21, 17, 22-23, 26,28 Page 3, 4, 5-7

  6. High Court of Delhi 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2391

    Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi.

    Ratio

    If the statement of the survivor inspires confidence, then the court may convict on the statement alone.

    Pincites

    Para 18-19; Page 4

  7. High Court of Delhi 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1378

    Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

    Ratio

    It is well settled that in a case of rape, the finding of guilt can be recorded even on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the child survivor provided it is cogent and reliable. Even in a case of penetration, the consistent judicial diktat is that absence of injuries may not always be fatal to…

    Pincites

    Para 16-18, 20; Page 4

  8. High Court of Delhi 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4380

    Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Ratio

    The child survivor being of tender age may have contradictions in their testimony. However, if they are consistent in their testimony as to the incident and are able to identify the accused, they would be considered a competent witness and their testimony may be admitted.

    Pincites

    para 19, 23 & 24.

  9. High Court of Himachal Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine HP 4139

    Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

    Ratio

    Convictions can be sustained on the sole testimony of the child survivor when found cogent and reliable, and corroboration is not necessary.The testimony of the child survivor of a sex related offence must be given the same evidentiary value as that to an injured person in cases of physical violence.

    Pincites

    Para 13, 18; Page 4, 5

  10. High Court of Madras Crl. A. Nos. 130 of 2018, 190, 506 of 2019 and Crl. M. P. No. 3169 of 2018 in Crl. A. No. 130 of 2018

    Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State

    Ratio

    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