Repository

Case Repository

1–4 of 4 cases
  1. 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

  2. High Court of Manipur 2019 SCC OnLine Mani 164

    Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur

    Ratio

    The child may have a parent or other trusted person present at the time of testifying and can call for assistance from an interpreter, special educator, or other professional while giving evidence. Further, the Court held that the child is not to be called repeatedly to testify in Court and may testify through a video…

    Pincites

    Para 2, 15, 17, 19, 22; Page 1, 3, 4

  3. 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

  4. High Court of Gauhati Crl. Appeal (J) 87/2017

    Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam

    Ratio

    For the applicability of Section 29, the prosecution is required to establish foundational facts on the standard of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Once prosecution has been able to establish foundational facts based on preponderance of probability then by legal presumption under Section 29 of Act it could be said that prosecution…

    Pincites

    Para 63, 66, 123; Page 24, 28, 29, 52