Showing 1–3 of 3 cases

High Court of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Kerala High Court of Tripura at Agartala

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

    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

  2. High Court of Tripura at Agartala Crl. A (J) 34 of 2019

    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

  3. High Court of Kerala WA No. 1651 of 2020

    Justin v. Union of India and Ors.

    Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are held to be Constitutional and they do not violate the Fundamental Rights, nor are they contrary to the basic criminal Principles. Presumption under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO would become operational only after the prosecution has established the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.

    Pincites  Para 21-31, 35; Page 15-18 Read case : Justin v. Union of India and Ors.