-
Court on its Own Motion v. State
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 Read case : Court on its Own Motion v. State -
State v. Sujeet Kumar
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 Read case : State v. Sujeet Kumar -
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 -
Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
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 Read case : Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) -
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 -
Parsu Ram vs. State
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 Read case : Parsu Ram vs. State -
Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi.
If the statement of the survivor inspires confidence, then the court may convict on the statement alone.
Pincites Para 18-19; Page 4 Read case : Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi. -
Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
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 Read case : Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) -
Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
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. Read case : Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) -
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.