-
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 -
Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur
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 Read case : Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur -
Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
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 Read case : Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.